A  w 


BT  250  . A  7 3  1916 
Argo,  Fordyce  Hubbard. 
Jesus’  idea 


L6ICT 

A  t* 


I 


\ 


✓ 


' 


.  . 


'v 


JESUS’  IDEA 

A  Study  of  the  Real  Jesus 


BY 


FORDYCE  HUBBARD  ARGO,  B.D. 

Rector  of  the  Memorial  Church  of  The  Holy 
Nativity,  Rockledge,  Pa. 

'Xs'  .  />  i  , 

Libr  c-  nsh^oMS'ihoucJn' 

N.  ' 


BOSTON:  RICHARD  G.  BADGER 

TORONTO*.  THE  COPP  CLARK  CO.,  LIMITED 


Copyright,  1916,  by  Fordyce  H.  Argo 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Made  in  the  United  States  Of  Americ 


The  Gorham  Press,  Boston,  U.  S.  A,. 


THIS  STUDY  IS  GRATEFULLY  DEDICATED 
TO  THREE  NOBLE  WOMEN: 


THE  MOTHER  WHO  GAVE  ME  LIFE;  THE  STEPMOTHER 
WHO  FIRST  TAUGHT  ME  TO  LOVE  AND  ADMIRE  JESUS  OF 
NAZARETH  ;  THE  WIFE,  MY  FAITHFUL  COMPANION  AND 
HELPMEET  IN  MAKING  KNOWN  JESUS  AND  HIS  IDEA 

AMONG  MEN. 


“It  is  the  people  that  make  the  nation  great  or  vile  in  the 
sight  of  the  universe.  Shall  you  nourish  them,  then,  on  the 
garbage  of  ribald  feebleness,  or  on  the  pure,  strong  meats  of 
the  mind?  As  you  feed  them,  so  will  be  their  substance  and 
sinew ;  as  you  nourish  them,  so  will  be  the  fruit  that  they  bear.” 

Ouida. 

“But,  after  all,  the  power  of  any  religion  is  to  be  found  in 
its  ideas  and  in  the  personality  of  its  founder.  Men  will  return 
to  these  as  to  a  living  fountain,  which  may  have  been  choked 
for  centuries  with  sand  and  drift-wood.  Clearing  away  the 
rubbish  they  see  again  the  living  water.  Drinking  of  it,  they 
will  rejoice  all  the  more  when  the  full  river  of  the  water  of 
life — sufficient  to  satisfy  the  thirst  of  all  lands — breaks  upon 
their  astonished  vision.” 

G.  M.  Grant. 

“Man  is  either  a  free  being,  with  an  intelligent  Deity  as 
his  counterpart,  or  else  he  and  his  fellows  are  a  mere  procession 
of  marionettes,  which  strut,  or  jig,  or  laugh,  or  groan,  or  caper, 
according  as  their  wires  are  pulled  by  forces  admittedly  less 
intelligent  than  themselves.” 


W.  H.  Mallock. 


PREFACE 


The  attention  of  thoughtful  minds  is  riveted  to-day  upon 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  never  before.  While  the  world  at  large, 
and  even  the  Christian  World,  is  witnessing  an  ever-increasing 
questioning  and  disregard  of  apparently  outworn  religious  sys¬ 
tems,  both  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical,  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
men  are  turning  with  ever-freshening  interest  and  homage  to 
the  Galilean  Peasant.  One  of  the  most  singular  and  salient 
phenomena  of  the  day,  indeed,  is  the  fearless  challenge  to  which 
the  Faith  of  Christendom  and  the  Authority  of  the  Christian 
Church  is  being  subjected.  Men  are  asking  whether  the  ac¬ 
cepted  faith  can  be  justified,  and  whether  the  church  is  repre¬ 
sentative  or  misrepresentative  of  Jesus.  The  question  is  usually 
charged  with  tremendous  seriousness,  and  men  are  more  and 
more  seeking  to  understand  the  source  of  both  faith  and  church. 
What  is  Jesus’  real  relationship  to  these?  What  is  the  idea 
back  of  these  phenomena?  Can  Jesus  be  directly  and  intimately 
associated  with  them,  or  is  the  relationship  unreal  and  far 
removed?  Such  are  the  questionings.  Current  religious  litera¬ 
ture  witnesses  abundantly  to  this  fact.  In  consequence  Jesus 
is  finding  many  and  able  interpreters.  What  was  Jesus  Idea? 
then  becomes  a  matter  of  paramount  importance.  Yet,  so  far 
as  the  writer  knows,  there  have  been  but  slight  attempts  to  treat 
systematically  and  popularly  of  “Jesus’  Idea.”  That  this  is  an 
important  subject  few  will  deny.  Many,  indeed,  are  prepared 
to  admit  that  it  is  the  most  important  subject  in  connection  with 
Christianity.  The  writer,  sharing  this  feeling  and  attracted 
by  the  importance  and  interest  of  this  subject,  has  sought  in 
the  following  pages  to  disclose  “Jesus’  Idea”  as  it  is  expressed 
and  embodied  in  the  teaching  and  acts  of  the  Master  recorded 
in  the  Four  Gospels.  Further,  the  aim  has  been  to  present  the 
Idea  of  Jesus  and  its  development  in  such  a  way  that  even  the 
casual  and  comparatively  non-theological  reader  may  under¬ 
stand.  This  purpose  will  explain  the  ample  quotations  from 

5 


6 


Jesus’  Idea 


the  Bible,  and  the  endeavor  to  compress  much  information  with¬ 
in  a  small  compass.1 

Attempts  of  this  character,  unless  the  writer  is  grievously 
mistaken,  are  ever  becoming  more  necessary  in  an  age  of  analyt¬ 
ical  rather  than  synthetical  criticism;  in  an  age  when  men  are 
being  fed  frequently  upon  the  chaff  of  critical  studies  rather 
than  upon  the  wheat  of  Christianity.  In  fact,  amidst  the  intri¬ 
cate  maze  of  interesting  detail  which  now  holds  the  attention 
of  Biblical  students  and  which  inclines  the  mind  even  of  the 
average  person  more  easily  to  negation  than  to  affirmation,  men 
are  likely  to  forget  what  essential  Christianity  is.  A  temporary 
paralysis  has  indeed  already  resulted  to  true  Christian  faith  and 
practice.  That  Biblical  Criticism  should  contribute  to  this  re¬ 
sult  is  due  in  part,  we  believe,  to  the  fact  that  there  has  not  been 
the  careful,  consistent,  and  persistent  setting  forth  on  the  part 
of  the  Christian  Church,  of  the  basic  truth  of  Christianity,  as 
it  is  disclosed  in  Jesus’  Idea.  Emphasis  is  usually  placed  upon 
the  subordinate  details  in  the  Christian  View  of  God  and  of  the 
World,  and  not  upon  the  View  itself.  Had  the  emphasis  been 
placed  upon  the  View  itself,  so  august,  convincing,  and  self-suffi¬ 
cient  is  that  View,  that  much  of  the  evil  which  we  deplore 
would  have  been  avoided.  Hence  there  is  a  great  need  of  posi¬ 
tive  and  definite  teaching,  for  Christianity,  as  it  is  interpreted 
by  Jesus,  is  its  own  best  proof. 

The  writer,  however,  does  not  share  the  fear  of  many  that 
substantial  loss  will  ensue  to  Christianity  as  the  result  of  the 
modern  scientific  spirit  of  inquiry,  of  Biblical  Criticism,  of  the 
Study  of  Comparative  Religion,  and  of  the  present  general 
method  of  Historical  Investigation.  He  looks  for  substantial 
gain,  rather  than  loss.  Yet  there  will  be  profound  modifica¬ 
tion  of  earlier  opinion  about  many  subjects;  especially  marked 
will  be  the  change  produced  in  the  conception  of  faith,  and  of 
the  claims  and  nature  of  the  Christian  Church.  This,  indeed, 
is  already  noticeable  in  the  life  of  our  time.  While  the  various 
denominations  are  endeavoring  usually  to  hold  fast  to  the  old, 
sometimes  opposing  resolutely  the  new,  and  occasionally  ex- 

*The  Biblical  quotations  are  usually  taken  from  the  Authorized 
Version,  in  spite  of  its  inaccuracies  and  inadequacy,  because  it  is 
the  version  generally  used  by  the  majority  of  English-speaking 
Christians,  however  we  may  deplore  the  fact. 


Preface 


7 


hibiting  a  decidedly  reactionary  tendency,  there  is  everywhere  a 
gradual  but  increasing  undermining  of  the  old.  Thoughtful 
minds  outside  the  Church,  and  thousands  of  nominal  adherents 
of  the  Church,  are  ceasing  to  care  greatly  for  denominational 
systems  and  doctrinal  formularies.  They  do  not  war  upon 
them,  but  treat  them  with  studied  indifference,  easy-going  tol¬ 
erance,  or  sometimes  with  open  contempt.  They  may  remain 
within  the  lines  of  their  former  allegiance,  but  the  spirit  of 
their  allegiance  is  changing.  They  are  quietly  emphasizing  the 
commandments  of  God,  while  the  traditions  of  men  are  lapsing 
into  “innocuous  desuetude.”  “Modernism,”  indeed,  is  every¬ 
where  apparent,  and  is  steadily  growing  in  influence.  It  is,  in 
fact,  becoming  all-pervasive.  One  effect  of  this  spirit,  we  be¬ 
lieve,  will  be  the  fuller  appreciation  of  Jesus  and  His  Idea. 

In  endeavoring  to  ascertain  “Jesus’  Idea,”  use  has  been 
made  of  the  Four  Gospels.  Christ  Himself  left  no  writings. 
We  have  simply  reports  of  His  words;  indeed,  speaking  ex¬ 
actly,  we  have  only  translations  of  reports  of  His  teaching. 
Jesus  probably  spoke  in  Aramaic,  and  not  in  Greek.  St.  Mat¬ 
thew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke  alike,  for  the  most  part,  trans¬ 
late  into  Greek  a  report  of  what  Christ  said.  Just  how  ac¬ 
curately  they  translated  the  report,  and  how  accurately  the 
first-hand  report  represented  the  teaching  of  Jesus  are  interest¬ 
ing  questions.  That  they  tell  us  truly  what  they  believe  Christ 
taught  cannot  be  denied;  the  writings  themselves  bear  the  in¬ 
trinsic  stamp  of  truthfulness.  Yet,  after  all,  reports  are  often 
inaccurate,  and  translations  of  reports  may  sometimes  be  doubly 
misleading.  This  fact  would  seem  to  throw  all  of  Christ’s 
teaching  into  the  realm  of  conjecture.  This,  however,  is  not  to 
be  believed.  The  trend  and  the  essential  substance  of  Jesus’ 
teaching  is  evident  enough  from  the  substantial  agreement  of 
the  various  reporters ;  and  from  the  clear-cut,  definite  impression 
which  they  convey — and  the  very  nature  of  the  teaching,  too, 
precludes  the  possibility  of  invention.  Hence,  we  have  no  diffi¬ 
culty  in  determining  approximately  what  Jesus  taught.  In 
using  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  writer  believes  that  he  is  using 
the  production  of  one  who  may  have  known  Jesus  intimately, 
and  that  the  author  was  probably  St.  John,  the  Apostle.  If 
St.  John  was  not  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  at  least  the 
production  of  one  who  had  meditated  long  and  intimately  upon 


8 


Jesus ’  Idea 


the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  had  grown  to  appreciate  its  beauty 
and  its  power.  Hence  in  this  sense  at  least,  this  source  is  as 
authoritative  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
The  writer,  indeed,  displays  a  more  marked  spiritual  insight 
than  the  Synoptists,  and  this  seemingly  guarantees  a  fairer  and 
fuller  appreciation  of  the  mind  of  Christ.  If  he  does  not  report 
the  form  of  Jesus’  teaching,  he  at  least  gives  us  insight  into  its 
content. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  of  our  day  that  the  Gospels  are  only 
now  coming  into  their  own.  This  may  seem  very  strange,  but 
it  is  undeniably  true.  With  the  Reformation,  the  Bible  may 
be  said  to  have  come  into  its  own ;  especially  the  Pauline  writ¬ 
ings.  Unfortunately,  the  exigency  of  the  situation  necessitated 
a  certain  obscuration  of  the  Gospels  and  their  message  at  that 
time.  This,  our  age  is  happily  ending,  and  the  effect  upon  the 
life  and  the  thought  of  the  world  will  be,  we  believe,  as  marked 
and  lasting  ultimately  as  that  of  the  earlier  Reformation;  for 
“Jesus’  Idea”  will  be  seen  to  be  the  very  essence  of  Christianity, 
and  this  will  compel  a  thorough-going  readjustment  along  many 
lines — intellectual,  ecclesiastical,  social,  industrial  and  economic. 

In  conclusion,  the  writer  would  acknowledge  his  great  ob¬ 
ligation  to  the  two  treasuries  of  scholarly  opinion  and  research : 
Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  and  the  Encyclopedia  Bib- 
lica,  and  especially  to  the  articles,  “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  by 
the  late  Dr.  Orr;  “Jesus  Christ,”  by  Dr.  Sanday,  and  “The 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,”  by  Dr.  Votaw,  in  the  former  work. 
“The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,”  by  the  late  Professor 
Stevens,  and  “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  by  the  late  Professor 
Bruce,  have  also  proven  useful.  While  various  authorities  have 
been  drawn  upon  in  the  course  of  the  work,  and  no  claim  of 
originality  is  made,  the  writer  trusts  that  he  has  made,  at 
least,  some  contribution  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  spirit 
and  the  aim  of  Jesus.  The  subject  matter  of  the  volume,  in 
fact,  was  presented  from  time  to  time  in  extemporaneous  ser¬ 
mons  and  addresses  to  a  Christian  congregation,  where  it  found 
appreciative  listeners.  Because  of  this,  the  volume  was  written, 
and  it  is  now  presented  to  the  public  in  the  hope  that  it  may 
prove  useful  and  suggestive.  The  writer’s  hearty  thanks  are 
due  to  Miss  Mary  C.  Haley,  who  kindly  prepared  the  manu¬ 
script  for  the  press.  Fordyce  Hubbard  Argo. 

The  Rectory,  Rockledge,  Pa. 

October  i,  1916. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

I. 

The  Kingdom  of  God . 

13 

II. 

The  Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Develop¬ 

ment  of  the  Idea . 

25 

III. 

The  Development  of  the  Idea  . 

39 

IV. 

The  Night  of  Legalism  .... 

47 

V. 

Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 

60 

VI. 

The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom  . 

78 

VII. 

The  Kingdom’s  Method  of  Development  . 

102 

VIII. 

The  World’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  . 

109 

IX. 

The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 

125 

X. 

The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom 

140 

XI. 

The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 

150 

XII. 

The  Time  of  the  Kingdom  .... 

167 

XIII. 

The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 

181 

XIV. 

The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural 

204 

XV. 

The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 

226 

Appendix . 

245 

JESUS’  IDEA 


y 


JESUS’  IDEA 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

The  measure  of  a  man’s  dissatisfaction  with  himself  is  the 
measure  of  the  man.  A  nation’s  self-dissatisfaction  is  the 
prophecy  of  what  it  may  become.  Our  aspirations  and  ambi¬ 
tions  are,  as  a  rule,  indicative  of  our  capabilities. 

Viewing  life  as  disinterestedly  as  one  can,  there  is  great 
difficulty  in  understanding  the  problem  of  the  world  and  of 
human  existence.  There  is  so  much  darkness  mingled  with 
the  light,  falsehood  with  truth,  sin  with  goodness,  sorrow  with 
happiness,  that  any  rational  solution  of  the  problem  seems  un¬ 
likely,  if  not  impossible. 

One  thing,  however,  attracts  and  rivets  the  attention: — 
Men,  individually  and  collectively,  are  not  satisfied,  and  have 
never  been  satisfied  with  themselves  or  their  condition.  There 
has  been,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  dissatisfaction  with  things 
as  they  are ;  it  is  this  divine  discontent,  indeed,  that  has  always 
turned  the  wheels  of  progress.  Rightly  does  the  poet  sing: 

‘‘Progress,  man’s  distinctive  mark  alone, 

Not  God’s,  and  not  the  beasts:  God  is,  they  are; 

Man  partly  is,  and  wholly  hopes  to  be.” 

“Progress  is 

The  Law  of  Life:  Man  is  not  Man  as  yet.” 

This  dissatisfaction  with  himself  affects,  very  noticeably, 
man’s  attitude  toward  the  material  and  the  intellectual  world 
of  his  time;  unfortunately,  this  spirit  of  discontent  is  not  so 
manifest  in  the  religious  world.  As  to  the  former,  there  is 

i  3 


14 


Jesus 1  Idea 


ever  and  always  a  restlessness  indicative  of  great  results.  Men 
palpably  think  life  “out  of  joint,”  and  seek  to  remedy  its  ills 
by  new  triumphs  over  material  resources;  or  they  fancy  that 
progress  along  intellectual  lines,  the  dispelling  of  ignorance,  the 
enlightening  of  the  human  mind,  and  the  attendant  results  in 
better  laws,  better  institutions,  and  a  more  righteous  and  equita¬ 
ble  government,  will  prove  the  desired  and  needed  remedy. 
Thus  we  achieve  splendid  and  ever-increasing  results  along  these 
lines,  which  are  to-day,  however,  but  weakly  and  poorly 
prophetic  of  those  surpassing  achievements  which  the  future 
now  conceals. 

There  are  those,  however,  who,  while  they  agree  with 
their  brethren  in  an  ardent  desire  for  better  conditions,  find 
that  neither  complete  mastery  over  the  material  world,  nor 
exhaustive  triumphs  in  the  intellectual  realm,  will  prove  the 
elixir  of  life.  In  their  view,  the  wound  of  humanity  lies  deeper 
than  matter  or  mind.  Man,  they  declare,  is  more  than  body 
or  matter,  more  than  intellect  or  mind.  Man  is  also  spiritual 
and  religious;  character  is  his  greatest  endowment.  And  just 
here  lies  their  dissatisfaction.  Man  is  not,  spiritually  and  re¬ 
ligiously,  what  he  ought  to  be.  In  the  view  of  this  class  of 
malcontents,  man  is  vitally  affected  in  the  spiritual  part  of  his 
nature;  therefore,  the  patent  need  of  the  world  and  of  the  in¬ 
dividual,  is  character.  “Give  us,”  they  say,  “all  possible  ma¬ 
terial  and  intellectual  progress;  but  above  all,  and  crowning 
all,  give  us  greater  progress  toward  God!”  A  closer  relation¬ 
ship  to  the  Deity  is  demanded;  new  triumphs  are  craved  here. 
And  so,  a  boundless  dream — albeit  called  by  some,  iridescent — 
haunts  their  thoughts:  they  have  a  vision  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  A  Kingdom  of  God  they  desire,  in  which  God’s  law 
shall  be  understood  and  known  of  all  men,  and  in  which  God’s 
will  shall  prevail,  and  God’s  will,  not  the  will  of  man,  be 
done. 

This  was  the  vision  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  just  here  Jesus 
had  His  starting  point.  He  was  the  chief  exponent  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God, — the  leader  of  those  who  would  remedy  the 
individual  and  the  social  ills  of  the  world  by  the  redemption 
of  man’s  moral  nature.  Speaking  in  a  general  way,  those  who 
seek  the  betterment  of  human  conditions  may  be  classified  as 
materialistic  reformers,  intellectual  reformers,  and  spiritual  re- 


The  Kingdom  of  God 


15 


formers;  that  is,  in  each  instance,  the  reformer  places  the  em¬ 
phasis  upon  the  material,  or  the  intellectual,  or  the  spiritual 
things  of  life.  Usually  men  are  controlled  in  their  efforts  at 
reform  by  one  of  these  principles,  often  to  the  exclusion,  or  sad 
neglect,  of  the  others.  Hence,  their  efforts  are  unsuccessful, 
and  often  vapid  and  inane,  because  partial  and  divisive,  in  that 
they  deal  with  man,  not  as  man,  but  as  body,  or  intellect,  or 
spirit.  Man  is,  however,  a  living  soul,  and  the  strength  of 
Christianity,  so  far  as  man  is  concerned,  lies  in  the  fact  that 
Jesus  Christ  in  His  attempt  at  reform,  took  into  account  man’s 
three-fold  nature — body,  mind,  and  spirit — and  made  adequate 
provision  therefor.  While  the  foundation  of  His  reformation 
lay  in  the  redemption  of  man’s  moral  nature,  Jesus  was  in  no 
way  deaf  to  the  appeal  either  of  the  body  or  the  mind,  as  His 
numerous  miracles,  and  His  strenuous  endeavors  to  instruct, 
amply  attest.  His  vision,  as  we  have  said,  was  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God ;  a  Kingdom  large  enough  to  include  all  the  needs  of 
man  while  based  upon  man’s  moral  needs.1 

The  unique  position  held  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  world  for  well-nigh  two  thousand  years,  is  ad¬ 
mitted  by  all;  nor  is  it  going  beyond  the  bounds  of  truth  to  say 
that,  great  as  has  been  the  homage  paid  to  the  Carpenter  of 
Nazareth  in  the  past,  greater  is  the  reverence  felt  toward  Him 
in  the  present;  and  more  intelligent  and  enduring  is  the  homage 
paid,  because  it  is  founded  upon  a  more  just  appreciation  of 
H  is  worth  as  a  man,  and  not  merely  upon  an  easy  and  unques¬ 
tioning  acceptance  of  Him  as  the  supernatural  Son  of  God. 

1  The  reader  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  does  not  proceed  far  before 
he  is  convinced  that  Jesus’  remedy  for  the  ills  of  the  world  was 
“the  Kingdom  of  God.”  He  may  be  at  a  loss  to  know  just  what 
Jesus  meant  by  the  expression — “Kingdom  of  God” — which  was  so 
often  upon  His  lips;  but  he  is  fully  aware  that  Jesus  laid  great 
stress  upon  the  importance  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  world.  For 
example,  he  is  at  once  confronted  by  so  remarkable  an  announce¬ 
ment  as  this:  “Seek  ye  first  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteous¬ 
ness,  and  all  these  things  shall  he  added  unto  you ”  (Matthew  6:33). 
This  absolute  direction  is  given  to  mankind  by  Jesus  without  any 
qualification  whatsoever.  If  one  reads  further,  he  finds  Jesus  always 
placing  great  emphasis  upon  the  Kingdom ;  an  emphasis  which  soon 
warrants  the  belief  that,  in  the  view  of  the  Master,  the  great  need 
of  the  world  and  of  man  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  However,  more 
of  this  anon.  See  Appendix  A,  “The  Theme  of  Jesus’  Preaching.” 


Jesus’  Idea 


1 6 

Remarkable  testimony  to  the  innate  grandeur  of  the  Christ 
can  be  adduced  from  many  sources :  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy, 
believer  and  unbeliever,  radical  and  conservative,  Jew  and 
Christian  alike,  unite  in  chanting  the  praises  and  acknowledg¬ 
ing  the  unique  greatness  of  Him  who  is,  more  and  more,  being 
crowned  King  of  Men.  Mr.  Lecky,  in  his  “History  of  Euro¬ 
pean  Morals,”  does  not  pay  too  high  encomium  to  the  Founder 
of  Christianity,  when  he  remarks:  “It  was  reserved  for  Chris¬ 
tianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character,  which, 
through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled  the  hearts 
of  men  with  an  impassioned  love  and  has  shown  itself  capable 
of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments,  conditions;  has 
not  only  been  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the  highest  in¬ 
centive  to  its  practice.”  The  testimony  of  a  noted  Rabbi  also 
is  no  less  emphatic  in  praise  of  Jesus  than  the  customary  Chris¬ 
tian  eulogy.  Delivering  an  address  before  the  Epworth  League 
of  St.  James’  Methodist  Church,  Chicago,  Dr.  Emil  G.  Hirsch 
declared:  “If  Jesus  Christ  should  return  to  the  earth  to-mor¬ 
row,  He  would  be  welcomed  in  every  Jewish  synagogue  in  the 
land,  and  every  Jew  would  say  with  David,  ‘Lift  up  your 
heads,  O  ye  gates,  and  be  ye  lifted  up  ye  everlasting  doors,  and 
the  King  of  Glory  shall  come  in.’  ”  While  this  very  cordial 
welcome  may  well  be  doubted  in  view  of  the  singularly  inhos¬ 
pitable  reception  extended  centuries  ago,  the  purport  of  the 
declaration  is  evident,  in  that  it  voices  the  admiration  felt  by 
many  Jews  for  the  Christ  life  and  the  Christ  character. 

Nor  can  we  forbear  to  quote  here  the  very  eloquent  tribute 
of  Monsieur  Renan,  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  his  Vie  de 
Jesus:  “As  for  us,  eternal  children,  condemned  to  weakness, 
we  who  labor  without  harvesting,  and  shall  never  see  the  fruit 
of  what  we  have  sown,  let  us  bow  before  these  demi-gods.  They 
knew  what  we  do  not  know :  to  create,  to  affirm,  to  act.  Shall 
originality  be  born  anew,  or  shall  the  world  henceforth  be  con¬ 
tent  to  follow  the  paths  opened  by  the  bold  creators  of  the 
ancient  ages?  We  know  not.  But  whatever  may  be  the  sur¬ 
prises  of  the  future,  Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed.  His  worship 
will  grow  young  without  ceasing;  His  legend  will  call  forth 
tears  without  end;  His  sufferings  will  melt  the  noblest  hearts; 
all  ages  will  proclaim  that  among  the  sons  of  men  there  is 
none  born  greater  than  Jesus.” 


The  Kingdom  of  God 


17 


Similar  testimony,  from  most  dissimilar  sources,  might  be 
multiplied  at  will ;  but,  not  to  weary  the  reader,  we  will  pass 
to  the  point  in  view:  The  growing  conviction  of  our  age  that 
the  truest  and  best  appreciation  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  gained 
along  the  line  of  a  study  of  the  Man  Himself,  and  His  teach¬ 
ings  and  acts;  and  not  primarily  from  a  study  of  what  others 
have  taught  about  Him.  “He  stood  the  more  a  King  when 
bared  to  man.”  His  message  to  the  world,  indeed,  is  best  heard 
from  His  own  lips;  and  His  ideas  are  best  gained  by  a  close 
study  of  His  own  words  as  we  find  them  reported  by  his  faith¬ 
ful  followers.  We  cannot  but  feel  that  the  world  has  suf¬ 
fered  an  immeasurable  loss,  in  that  the  teaching  of  the  Master 
has  been  somewhat  obscured  by  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
about  the  Master.  Against  the  teaching  of  the  Church  we  have 
no  word  to  utter ;  at  the  same  time,  what  is  eternally  and  logic¬ 
ally  and  chronologically  of  chiefest  importance,  is  the  Teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  Himself. 

We  have  indicated  briefly  that  the  engrossing  theme  of  Jesus 
was  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  that  this  seemed  to  the  Pre¬ 
eminent  Man  of  the  human  race,  the  world’s  great  need.  We 
think,  therefore,  that  if  this  solution  of  the  evils  of  human  life 
was  offered  by  Him  whom  millions  of  men  acknowledge  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  and  whom  all  acknowledge  to  be  the  ideal 
man,  it  becomes  the  duty,  and  it  is  the  privilege  of  every 
thoughtful  mind  to  inquire,  “What  is  meant  by  ‘The  Kingdom 
of  God’?  What  is  this  Kingdom  which  men  are  to  seek?” 
For  the  conviction,  so  aptly  expressed  by  Richard  Watson 
Gilder,  is  deepening  universally  and  steadily: 

“If  Jesus  Christ  is  a  man, 

And  only  a  man,  I  say 

That  of  all  mankind  I  cleave  to  Him, 

And  to  Him  will  I  cleave  alway. 

If  Jesus  Christ  is  a  God, 

And  the  only  God,  I  swear 
I  will  follow  Him  through  Heaven  and  Hell, 

The  earth,  the  sea,  and  the  air.” 

It  is,  therefore,  our  purpose  to  consider  the  Kingdom  of  God 
in  its  essential  characteristics,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  Teaching 
of  Jesus.  Preparatory,  however,  to  the  more  detailed  investiga¬ 
tion,  we  will  consider: 


1 8 


Jesus’  Idea 


1.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase,  “The  Kingdom  of  God” 
or  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 

2.  The  origin  and  pre-Christian  development  of  the  idea 
which  the  phrase  embodies. 

3.  The  significance  attached  to  the  expression  when  used 
by  Jesus. 

Now  first  let  us  consider  the  phrase  itself  and  its  meaning.1 

The  expressions,  “The  Kingdom  of  God”  and  “The  King¬ 
dom  of  Heaven,”  are  apparently  unequivocal  and  definite.  This 
definiteness,  however,  soon  begins  to  recede  when  one  endeavors 
to  define  the  meaning  of  the  phrase.  What  is  the  significance? 
Can  the  reader  give  any  ready  answer?  And  yet  this  expres¬ 
sion  stands  prominently  on  many  pages  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  written  large  on  almost  every  page  of  the  Synoptic  Gos¬ 
pels.  Surely  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  those  who  would 
read  their  Bible  intelligently,  should  determine  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment  the  meaning  of  an  expression  which  is  cer¬ 
tainly  among  the  most  important  in  the  Sacred  Book,  and  which 
furnishes  the  key  without  which  very  many  passages  are  most 
effectually  sealed. 

Now,  as  to  the  significance  of  the  phrase,  first  let  us  con¬ 
sider  the  word  “Kingdom.”  We  are  inclined  to  believe  that 
we  know  the  force  of  this  word:  it  seems  simple  and  easily 
intelligible,  but  a  little  reflection  proves  the  word  ambiguous. 
In  our  common  speech,  “kingdom”  is  used  in  different  senses. 
For  instance,  we  speak  of  the  Kingdom  of  England,  and  a  mo¬ 
ment  or  two  later  perhaps,  of  the  Vegetable  or  the  Mineral 
Kingdom.  Is  the  sense  of  the  word  the  same  in  both  expres¬ 
sions?  Manifestly,  it  is  not;  and  we  recognize  the  difference 
at  once.  The  word  may  be  used,  indeed,  to  define  the  territory 
or  the  country  that  is  subject  to  a  king;  when  it  is  used  in  this 
sense,  the  foreign  possessions  of  the  country  are  not  commonly 
included  in  the  idea.  We  speak,  for  instance,  of  the  Kingdom 
of  England  without  including  Canada  or  Australia.  So  in  this 
way  the  word  has  a  definite,  concrete,  territorial  sense:  it  is 
synonymous  with  “realm.”  But  there  is  another  sense  almost 
as  popular  as  this  territorial  one,  in  which  the  word  is  used. 
We  refer  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  country,  or  to  the  popula- 

1  See  Appendix  B,  “The  Phrases,  ‘Kingdom  of  Heaven’  and 
‘Kingdom  of  God.’  ” 


The  Kingdom  of  God 


1 9 


tion  subject  to  a  king,  as  the  “Kingdom.”  We  say  that  the 
kingdom  was  disturbed,  or  that  the  entire  kingdom  was  alarmed. 
Here,  of  course,  the  population  of  the  country  is  referred  to,  and 
here  “kingdom”  is  identical  with  the  subjects  of  the  realm.  But 
there  is  another  interesting  sense  to  be  considered.  This  word 
is  also  used  in  a  more  indefinite  and  abstract  sense;  at  times  it 
possesses  a  larger,  wider,  and  apparently  a  more  intangible 
meaning.  For  intance,  men  speak  of  the  Animal,  the  Vegetable 
and  the  Mineral  Kingdoms;  by  these  they  mean  those  divisions 
or  spheres  in  which  a  certain  law  prevails  and  holds  sway;  as 
in  the  Animal  Kingdom,  the  law  of  sentient  life.  Or  again,  in 
referring  to  the  Kingdom  of  George  V,  we  may  mean,  not 
merely  the  limited  territorial  Kingdom  of  England,  but  rather, 
wherever  the  authority  of  the  King  is  acknowledged  and  obeyed, 
whether  in  Canada,  Australia,  India,  or  the  distant  Islands  of 
the  Sea.  Here  “kingdom”  is  synonymous  with,  and  equivalent 
to  “sovereignty”  or  “rule.”  Thus  we  find  that  we  have  quite 
different,  yet  not  wholly  unrelated,  senses  of  the  word  “king¬ 
dom”  in  our  English  tongue.  It  becomes  therefore,  a  question 
of  prime  importance  to  determine  which  of  these  interpreta¬ 
tions  shall  be  applied  to  the  Biblical  expression — “The  King¬ 
dom  of  God.”  Are  we  to  interpret  the  watchword  of  Jesus  in 
terms  of  the  abstract  or  of  the  concrete?  Is  it  to  be  under¬ 
stood  of  a  definite  organization,  an  ecclesiastical  “realm,”  or 
shall  we  understand  it  as  applying  to  the  people,  or  persons, 
who  are  subject  to  Heaven  or  to  God?  Or,  lastly,  Is  it  to  be 
understood  of  that  division,  sphere  or  domain — whatever  and 
wherever  it  may  be — in  which  the  authority  of  God  and  the 
Law  of  Heaven  prevail  and  are  supreme?  Is  it  a  rule  or  sov¬ 
ereignty?  Surely  these  are  important  and  imperative  ques¬ 
tions  ;  they  ought  to  be  answered  by  every  intelligent  Christian ; 
and  they  are  of  the  gravest  importance  to  every  minister  of 
Christ,  who  would  understand  his  Master’s  aim  and  teaching. 

In  the  Talmud,  and  in  later  Jewish  literature,  the  expres¬ 
sion  is  more  commonly  used  in  the  latter  sense — that  of  sov¬ 
ereignty  or  “rule.”  The  Old  Testament  itself,  no  less  than 
subsequent  Jewish  literature,  bears  testimony  to  this  usage, 
as  we  shall  find  later  on.  Yet  it  would  be  very  unwise  in  our 
interpretation  of  “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  to  reject  wholly  any 
Of  the  senses  or  interpretations  of  the  word  “kingdom”  which 


20 


Jesus’  Idea 


have  been  given  above ;  for  in  so  doing,  we  would  seriously  cur¬ 
tail  a  term,  which  is  at  once  most  expressive  and  most  elusive. 
Indeed,  it  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  constantly  that  it  is  ex¬ 
tremely  difficult  to  define  adequately — i.  e.,  in  any  succinct  or 
concise  way, — the  meaning  of  this  phrase :  not  because  the  sense 
is  hazy,  and  the  term  inconclusive,  and  meaning  nothing  in  real¬ 
ity,  but  because  the  expression  is  so  pregnant  with  meaning. 
However,  in  defining  “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  usually  one  of 
the  interpretations  mentioned  above  is  adopted,  and  often  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others,  the  most  common,  and  apparently  the 
simplest,  being  to  identify  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  with  the 
Christian  Church.  This  too  common  and  superficial  view  is 
the  bane  of  much  of  our  Christianity,  and  the  effectual  means 
by  which  many  are  deterred  from  gaining  any  true  and  adequate 
insight  into  the  august  conception  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Noth¬ 
ing  has  been  more  harmful  throughout  the  centuries;  nothing 
is  more  harmful  to-day.  While  this  interpretation  should  not 
be  rigorously  excluded  from  the  possible  and  allowable  inter¬ 
pretations  of  the  phrase,  it  should  be  rigorously  placed  in,  and 
be  made  to  abide  in,  a  secondary  and  subordinate  position;  for 
it  teems  with  error.  Yet  withal  there  is  one  sense  of  the  ex¬ 
pression  which  indicates  its  basic  and  fundamental  idea;  of  this 
one  must  be  the  possessor  and  the  ever-conscious  possessor,  if 
he  would  wend  his  way  successfully  and  satisfactorily  through 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  “The  Kingdom  of  God” 
suggests  and  denotes  the  “sovereignty”  or  “rule”  of  God}  or  of 
Heaven.  Whether  this  rule  be  over  a  realm,  or  a  people,  or  an 
individual,  is  a  secondary  and  a  subsidiary  matter.  “The  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  God”  is  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  phrase: 
all  else  is,  indeed,  secondary. 

The  most  concise  and  the  most  explicit  indication  of  the 
phrase’s  meaning  is  that  given  by  Jesus  Himself  in  the  Lord’s 
Prayer,  in  the  words  “Thy  Kingdom  come,  Thy  will  be  done 
in  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven”  (St.  Matthew  6:10).  Or  again, 
the  meaning  of  the  expression  may  be  gathered  from  Our  Lord’s 
emphatic  declaration:  “Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord, 
Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  My  Father  which  is  in  Heaven.”  The  inherent  and 
essentially  inward  and  spiritual  character  of  the  Kingdom  may 
also  be  seen  from  such  a  passage  as  St.  Luke  17:20,  21.  Jesus 


The  Kingdom  of  God 


21 


is  replying  to  the  Pharisees,  who  were  inquiring  anxiously  as 
to  the  time  when  the  Kingdom  of  God  should  come.  His 
words  are:  “The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observa¬ 
tion;  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo  here,  lo  there!  for,  behold,  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.”  The  words  “within  you” 
may  also  be  translated  “in  the  midst  of  you”;  but  whichever 
translation  is  accepted,  the  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the  inward 
and  spiritual  aspect  of  the  Kingdom.  Many  additional  pas¬ 
sages  might  be  cited  in  substantiation  of  our  contention ;  in  fact, 
as  the  reader  proceeds  through  these  pages,  numerous  quota¬ 
tions  from  both  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old  Testament 
will  be  met  with,  all  of  which  will  be  found  to  bear  upon  this 
interpretation.1 

Enough  has  now  been  said,  however,  to  indicate  that  the 
essential  thought  of  the  phrase,  “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  is  the 
sovereignty  of  God ;  or,  if  we  choose  to  view  it  from  its  man- 
ward  side,  it  is  obedience  to  God's  will.  The  phrase  may  be 
defined,  therefore,  as  “the  domain  in  which  God’s  Holy  Will 
is  done  in  and  among  men.” 

Valuable  testimony  to  the  validity  of  this  interpretation  is 
furnished  by  Professor  Dalman  in  his  “Words  of  Jesus,”  when 
he  says, — “No  doubt  can  be  entertained  that  both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  Jewish  literature  malekoth  (kingdom),  when 
applied  to  God,  means  always  the  ‘kingly  rule,’  never  the 
‘kingdom’  as  if  it  were  meant  to  suggest  the  territory  gov¬ 
erned  by  Him.  For  the  Old  Testament  see  Psalms  103:19; 
145:11,  12,  13,  cf.  Obad.  21,  Ps.  29:29.  For  the  Jewish  lit¬ 
erature,  the  instances  to  be  cited  later  on.  To-day,  as  in 
antiquity,  an  Oriental  ‘kingdom’  is  not  a  body  politic  in  our 
sense,  a  people  or  land  under  some  form  of  constitution,  but 
merely  a  ‘sovereignty’  which  embraces  a  particular  territory. 
We  shall  be  justified,  therefore,  in  starting  from  this  significa¬ 
tion  of  malekoth  as  employed  by  Jesus”  (p.  94).  Passages  from 
later  Jewish  writings  might  be  cited  here,  but,  inasmuch  as 
several  of  the  most  important  of  these  will  be  quoted  in  a  later 

1  The  fundamental  thought  and  idea  of  “The  Kingdom  of  God” 
is  clearly,  if  somewhat  indirectly,  indicated  also  in  two  of  the  most 
suggestive  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  In  these,  the  poles  of 
Jesus’  thought  are  found  to  be  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  King¬ 
dom  of  Satan  (St.  Luke  10:17,  18,  21,  22;  11:15,  17-22). 


22 


Jesus 1  Idea 


chapter,  they  are  not  now  brought  before  the  reader;  when 
adduced,  they  will  be  found  to  support  the  assertion  of  Pro¬ 
fessor  Dalman. 

The  significance  of  the  descriptive  phrase  “of  Heaven,” 
or  “of  God,”  now  remains  to  be  considered:  for  the  expression 
is  not  merely  “the  Kingdom,”  but  the  Kingdom  which  is  “of 
God”  or  “of  Heaven.” 

The  genitive  denotes  the  origin  and  source,  and  also,  we 
think,  the  character  of  the  Kingdom.  The  idea  is:  In  contra¬ 
distinction  to  the  kingdoms  “in”  and  “of”  this  world,  this 
“kingdom”  is  to  be  “from”  and  “of”  heaven.1 

While  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  are  of  this  sphere,  the 
result  of  human  effort  and  development,  reared  by  men,  and  the 
product  of  their  labor,  it  is  not  so  with  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  not  developed  from  below,  it  is 
introduced  from  above;  born,  not  of  earth,  but  of  heaven;  not 
the  product  of  man’s  labor,  but  “of  the  creative  activity  of 
God.”  Yet  it  is  profoundly  true  that  men  have  their  part  in 
the  upbuilding  of  the  Kingdom,  and  that  a  most  essential  part; 
but,  because  the  initiative  lies  with  God,  and  the  whole,  in  its 
conception  and  development,  would  prove  abortive,  without 
the  ever-present  care  and  supervision  of  Deity,  it  is  rightly 
denominated  “The  Kingdom  of  God.” 

Further,  the  Kingdom  is  “of  Heaven”  or  “of  God”  not 


1  Many  New  Testament  passages  corroborate  this  idea  and  set 
forward  this  aspect  of  the  Kingdom.  The  “Kingdom”  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  “coming”  in  St.  Matthew  6 : io :  “Thy  Kingdom  come”; 
as  given  to  those  who  are  worthy  of  it,  thns  emphasizing  God’s 
ownership  of  it :  St.  Matthew  21 143,  “The  Kingdom  of  God  shall 
be  taken  from  you  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof”;  the  Kingdom  is  “received,”  St.  Mark  10:15  :  “Whosoever 
shall  not  receive  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not 
enter  therein”;  it  is  “prepared”  by  God  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world  (St.  Matthew  25:34);  and  it  is  “inherited”  by  men: 
“Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  Kingdom  prepared 
for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world”;  mankind  “enter”  the 
Kingdom  through  compliance  with  God’s  demands :  “Except  your 
righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven” 
( St.  Matthew  5 :2o)  ;  finally,  the  Kingdom  must  be  sought  after : 
“Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness”  (St. 
Matthew  6:33).  These,  and  similar  passages,  are  clearly  confirma¬ 
tory  of  the  heavenly  source  and  origin  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 


The  Kingdom  of  God 


23 


only  in  its  source,  but  also  in  its  character.  God  and  the  World, 
Heaven  and  Earth,  are  often  contrasted  in  the  pages  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures;  the  terms,  indeed,  represent  different  princi¬ 
ples,  widely  separated,  always  opposed  and  waging  an  eternal 
warfare.  The  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  save  as  they  have  been 
leavened  with  spiritual  principles,  are  the  embodiment  of 
“worldly”  ideas;  they  have  been  formed,  they  are  maintained, 
and  their  boundaries  are  extended  through  “worldly”  princi¬ 
ples  and  methods.  These  kingdoms  are  the  incarnation  of 
man’s  conceptions  and  ambitions;  they  reveal  man’s  character 
as  divorced  from  God.  Not  so,  however,  is  it  with  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God.  Unlike  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  the  Kingdom 
of  God  is  founded,  maintained  and  extended  through  heavenly 
principles  and  by  Godly  means;  it  is  the  embodiment  of  God’s 
ideas,  conceptions  and  ambitions;  it  reveals  man’s  true  char¬ 
acter  and  the  possibilities  inherent  in  human  nature.  The 
Kingdom  of  God  is  also  governed  by  divine  laws;  not  by  laws 
of  human  enactment.  Such,  in  brief,  is  the  significance  of  the 
descriptive  clause  “of  God”  or  “of  Heaven.” 

It  is  most  noteworthy,  however,  that  Jesus  never  defined  the 
Kingdom  of  God;  His  method  was  not  that  of  definition,  but 
of  suggestion,  comparison,  and  illustration:  He  always  told 
what  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  like.  Jesus,  in  fact,  was  pecu¬ 
liarly  and  happily  free  from  the  theological  license  of  affirma¬ 
tion.  Why  He  failed  to  define  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  a  fruit¬ 
ful  source  of  conjecture.  Perhaps  the  expression  was  already 
suffering  from  an  excess  of  definition ;  perhaps  He  simply 
adopted  the  free  Oriental  and  figurative  manner  of  speech, 
or  He  may  have  sought  to  stimulate — not  to  satisfy — the  minds 
of  men;  or  again — and  this  is  the  most  probable  reason  for  His 
wholly  admirable  self-restraint, — He  well  knew  that  to  define 
the  conception  is  to  curtail,  perhaps  to  seriously  misrepresent  it. 
The  phrase  itself,  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  in  the  magnitude 
of  its  suggested  totality  indicates  the  inability  of  the  finite  mind 
to  fully  comprehend  an  infinite  conception.  An  infinite  con¬ 
ception,  indeed,  defies  finite  definition ;  infinite  realities  defy 
human  comprehension.  For  this  cause,  the  method  of  the 
Master  was  suggestive  and  fragmentary,  not  systematic  and 
exhaustive.  There  is,  indeed,  an  exquisite  touch  of  pathos  in 
the  kindliness  of  Jesus,  who,  Himself,  supremely  the  Master  of 


24 


Jesus y  Idea 


the  idea,  yet  accommodates  His  teaching  to  the  limitations  and 
the  finiteness  of  man.  An  idea,  so  complex,  so  vast  and  so  all- 
inclusive,  forever  hovers  in  a  mist  of  elusiveness;  we  catch  a 
glimpse  now  and  again  of  the  reality, — we  reach  for  it,  and 
lo,  it  is  gone;  we  seek  to  define,  and  the  illimitable  conception 
baffles  our  most  strenuous  endeavors.  The  utmost  that  human¬ 
ity  can  do  is  to  throw  out  words  at  the  august  object,  in  the 
hope  that  they  may  be  measurably  adequate;  an  approximation 
of  the  truth  is  all  that  we  can  hope  for. 

We  hesitate,  then,  to  define  the  “Kingdom  of  God,”  but 
should  the  rash  attempt  be  made,  our  approximate  definition 
would  be  this:  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  absolute  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  the  Universe,  the  absolute  rule  of  the  World  and  of 
each  individual  by  the  Will  of  the  Omnipotent  and  Righteous 
God;  exemplified  and  made  possible  to  humanity  in  the  Person 
of  Jesus  Christ;  it  is  the  full  realization  of  the  mind  and  char¬ 
acter  of  God.  The  great  difficulty,  however,  encountered  in 
any  attempt  to  define  the  Kingdom  of  God,  renders  more  im¬ 
perative  the  duty  of  determining  what  is  the  basic  and  funda¬ 
mental  idea  of  the  phrase.  Hence,  we  learn  that  the  expres¬ 
sion  means,  in  the  last  analysis,  a  rule  or  sovereignty,  having  its 
source  and  seat  of  authority  in  God,  and  in  character,  illus¬ 
trating  the  principles  which  obtain  and  prevail  in  Heaven.1 

It  is  now  our  privilege  to  inquire:  What  is  the  Origin  and 
Development  of  the  Idea  expressed  by  the  words,  “The  King¬ 
dom  of  God”  or  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven”? 

1  See  Appendix  C,  “Various  Definitions  of  The  Kingdom.” 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  PRE-CHRISTIAN  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA 

Of  all  the  solutions  of  the  problem  of  human  existence,  that 
offered  in  the  Bible  has  seized  most  forcibly  upon  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men.  The  Bible,  indeed,  offers  the  highest 
philosophy  of  life:  it  is  the  truest  philosophy  of  history,  and 
the  noblest  history  of  philosophy. 

The  Bible,  however,  is  an  entire  library  in  itself;  and  al¬ 
though  it  is  the  production  of  many  ages,  of  many  pens,  and 
of  many  minds  of  varying  degrees  of  intellectuality  and  spiritual 
insight,  written  for  different  peoples,  called  into  being  by  mani¬ 
fold  circumstances,  and  aimed  to  meet  diverse  needs  and  exi¬ 
gencies,  there  is  a  substantial  unity  underlying  the  whole.  There 
is,  as  it  were,  a  silken  cord  running  throughout  the  entire  litera¬ 
ture,  binding  together  the  various  parts,  and  differentiating  this 
from  all  other  literature:  that  cord  is  The  Kingdom  of  God. 
However  the  authors  of  the  various  books  may  treat  their  sub¬ 
ject,  when  their  writings  are  analyzed,  their  theme  is  found  to 
be  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  The  careful  historian,  the  far- 
seeing  statesman,  the  ecstatic  seer,  the  quiet  philosopher,  the 
powerful  preacher,  the  sweet-spirited  poet,  the  thoughtful 
scholar,  the  practical  man  of  affairs — all  contribute  their  share 
to  the  Sacred  Literature,  and  vie  with  each  other  in  setting  forth 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Hebrews,  in  fact,  were  essentially 
a  people  of  one  idea,  and  their  literature  reflects  their  life. 

The  Bible,  indeed,  is  the  history  of  the  revelation,  the  evolu¬ 
tion  and  the  realization  of  an  idea — The  Kingdom  of  God;  a 
revelation  not  complete  and  final  in  its  beginning,  but  gradual 
and  progressive,  ever  adapted  and  accommodated  to  the  recep¬ 
tivity  of  man,  and  following  the  law  of  development  that  is 
written  everywhere  in  the  Universe,  “first  the  blade,  then  the 
ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.”  Let  us  trace  this  develop- 

25 


2  6 


Jesus’  Idea 


ment  in  bold,  brief  outline,  with  just  enough  attention  to  detail 
to  mark  the  various  steps  in  the  progress  and  their  significance. 

In  introducing  the  problem  of  the  world  and  of  life,  the 
Scriptures  begin  with  the  declaration:  “In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth”  (Genesis  i  :i).  The  writer 
also  informs  us  of  the  satisfaction  felt  by  the  Deity  with  the 
work  of  His  hands:  “God  saw  everything  that  he  had  made, 
and  behold,  it  was  very  good”  (Gen.  1:31).  At  once,  how¬ 
ever,  the  question  arises — What  is  meant  by  the  expression 
“very  good”?  What  is  the  standard  of  comparison  that  is  to 
determine  the  “goodness”?  The  world,  or  creation,  was  “very 
good,”  but  “very  good”  as  related  to  whom,  or  to  what?  Mani¬ 
festly,  the  standpoint  of  God  is  intended.  That  creation  was 
“very  good”  means  that,  in  its  relation  to  God  and  to  all  other 
creatures,  everything  created  was  as  it  ought  to  be.  This,  in¬ 
deed,  is  the  true  standard  of  goodness  in  every  age.  There  was 
a  condition  of  perfect  harmony  between  the  Creator  and  the 
created.  There  was  no  antagonism,  but  perfect  obedience; 
Creator  and  creature  were  at  peace.  On  every  side  the  mind 
of  God  was  revealed;  His  laws  were  admitted  and  obeyed; 
God  was  King,  the  world  of  Creation  was  His  Kingdom. 

This  relation  of  God  to  the  physical  world  is  throughout 
the  Old  Testament  emphasized  by  prophet  and  by  psalmist. 
Psalm  47:7  reads: — “God  is  the  king  of  all  the  earth.”  In  the 
Psalms  generally,  and  in  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
this  Kingship  of  God  is  represented  as  extending  over  angels 
and  men,  the  nations  and  kingdoms  of  the  earth;  in  fact,  this 
sovereignty  is  co-extensive  with  creation,  even  the  forces  of 
nature  are  regarded  as  Plis  ministers,  while  all  things  serve 
Him  (Isa.  i;  Chron.  29:11). 

But  instantly  the  question  arises:  “Have  not  men  rebelled 
against  God;  do  they  not  oppose  His  will?”  If  so,  how  can 
God  be  their  King,  and  the  world  of  men  constitute  His  King¬ 
dom?  This  question  is  a  natural  and  a  logical  one,  and  while 
it  is  apparently  unanswerable,  it  was  both  raised  and  answered 
of  old.  The  true  and  adequate  answer  lies  in  Shakespeare’s 
famous  dictum: 


“There’s  a  divinity  that  shapes  our  ends, 
Rough-hew  them  how  we  will.” 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development  27 

Indeed,  this  well-known  and  seemingly  weighty  objection  to 
the  Supremacy  of  God,  as  apparent  in  an  early  age  as  in  this, 
did  not  cause  the  Biblical  writers  to  minimize  for  an  instant 
God’s  full  and  entire  sovereignty  over  man.  Again  and  again 
the  Old  Testament  teaches  God’s  providence  over  all,  nations 
and  individuals,  heaven  and  earth  alike.  One  of  the  most  ex¬ 
plicit  and  interesting  of  the  passages  is  Daniel  4:34,  35.  Jere¬ 
miah,  too,  represents  men  as  clay  in  the  hands  of  God,  who 
moulds  them  even  as  the  potter  moulds  his  clay.  He  tells  us 
that  if  nations  will  not  be  moulded  into  vessels  of  honorable 
use  in  serving  the  divine  ends,  they  will  be  moulded  to  other 
uses  as  vessels  of  dishonor.  Again  Psalm  76:10  declares  that 
even  the  wrath  of  man  is  made  to  praise  God,  while  the  residue 
of  wrath  is  restrained. 

Thus  the  Biblical  conception  is,  that  despite  the  opposition 
of  nations  and  of  individuals,  God’s  providence  rules  over  all; 
that  so  great  and  superb  is  God’s  plan,  so  august  is  His  Om¬ 
niscience,  so  invincible  and  far-reaching  His  Omnipotence,  that 
due-account  of  human  self-will  and  human  opposition  was  taken 
ab  initio,  without  detracting  from  the  fact  that  God  is  King 
and  that  the  world  of  nature  and  the  world  of  men  constitute 
His  Kingdom.  Hence,  when  looking  toward  the  ultimate  out¬ 
come  of  creation,  we  may  believe  with  entire  freedom  of  faith, 
with  England’s  late  laureate: 

“That  there  is 

One  God,  one  law,  one  element 
And  one  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves.” 


We  may  believe  this  fully  and  freely,  because  “There  is  a 
divinity  that  shapes  our  ends,  rough-hew  them  how  we  will.” 
Such  a  faith,  indeed,  is  essential  to  rational  existence;  life, 
without  it,  is  unintelligible.  God  began  as  Monarch  and  He 
reigns  as  Sovereign. 

While  this  view  is  eminently  comforting  to  those  who  are 
concerned  about  the  denouement  of  Creation,  it  is  eminently 
unsatisfactory  from  the  standpoint  of  Heaven,  and  even  from 
the  standpoint  of  those  men  who  have  a  keen  sense  of  the  “fit¬ 
ness  of  things”  and  are  alive  to  the  deep  problems  of  life.  Can 


28 


Jesus’  Idea 


God,  in  view  of  His  very  nature,  be  satisfied  with  such  a  King¬ 
dom  or  Sovereignty?  God,  in  the  essence  of  His  Being,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Bible,  is  Free-will  and  Love,  no  less  than  Power. 
If  God  is  Liberty  and  Love,  we  cannot  expect  Him  (humanly 
speaking)  to  be  satisfied  with  a  sovereignty  over  men,  which  is 
non-moral  in  character  and  the  product  or  force,  rather  than 
loving  co-operation.  Hence  there  is,  in  the  very  nature  of  God, 
the  potentiality  of  a  far-higher  and  nobler  Kingdom  than  one 
founded  upon  mere  authority.  An  earthly  parent  desires  the 
free  and  loving  obedience  of  his  children,  not  an  obedience  ren¬ 
dered  to  his  authority  alone.  So  it  is  with  God.  He  desires 
and  seeks  the  submission  of  men  to  His  authority,  their  obedi¬ 
ence  to  His  rule,  but  an  obedience  which  is  both  intelligent  and 
willing,  conscious  and  affectionate. 

The  world  of  nature,  let  us  remember,  obeys  the  will  of 
God,  because  His  laws  are  inherent  in  its  very  constitution ; 
there  is  no  freedom  of  the  will,  no  power  of  choice,  no  self- 
consciousness;  it  must  proceed  in  its  God-appointed  channel. 
In  the  world  of  men,  however,  there  is  freedom  of  the  will,  a 
power  of  choice,  self-consciousness.  Man  is  not  a  machine, 
made,  wound  up  and  designed  to  run.  Man  is  a  personality; 
he  is  alone  capable  of  entering  into  the  closest  relationship  with 
his  Creator;  man  can  love  and  consciously  obey.  Therefore, 
the  great  world-problem  is  not  what  it  is  often  supposed  to  be: 
Will  God’s  end  in  Creation  be  attained?  Rather  is  it:  Will 
man  co-operate  with  God  in  the  realization  and  attainment  of 
that  end?  Thus,  as  in  the  inherent  nature  of  God,  there  lies 
is  the  essential  nature  of  man,  the  possibility  of,  the  foundation 
for,  and  the  prophecy  of  a  Kingdom  of  God,  far  higher  and 
nobler,  because  moral  and  spiritual,  than  that  which  exists  in 
the  world  of  nature.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  physical 
world,  indeed,  is  one  thing;  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity" 
is  another. 

Now  this  idea  of  a  Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity  was  God’s 
object  in  Creation,  if  the  Biblical  standpoint  be  accepted.  Upon 
the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  physical  world,  God  would  rear  a 
Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity;  the  one  representing  an  uncon¬ 
scious  obedience;  the  other,  a  conscious  and  willing  obedience 
to  His  will.  But  it  must  be  noted  that  in  man’s  ability  to  do 
good  there  lies  also  the  possibility  of  his  doing  evil.  The  very 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development 


29 


freedom  of  man’s  will  renders  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity 
open  to  a  temporary  defeat,  at  least;  man  might  choose  not  to 
obey  God. 


“Disobey ! 

You  may  divide  the  Universe  with  God, 

Keeping  your  will  unbent,  and  hold  a  world 
Where  He  is  not  supreme.” 

Such  freedom  of  choice,  indeed,  marked  out,  apparently, 
two  distinct  paths  along  which  the  Kingdom  of  God  could  be 
realized — the  pathway  of  obedience, — the  pathway  of  disobedi¬ 
ence.  What  the  course  of  the  world-development  would  have 
been  had  humanity  seen  fit  to  obey  God,  we  do  not  and  cannot 
know;  what  the  tortuous  path,  trodden  by  humanity  for  cen¬ 
turies  in  view  of  its  self-will  and  disobedience  is,  history, — lit 
up  by  the  interpretative  touch  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, — reveals. 

In  fact,  in  Genesis,  immediately  after  the  account  of  the 
Creation,  we  have  the  far-famed  story  of  the  Fall.  Whether 
this  narrative  is  history  or  myth,  whether  it  represents  fact  or 
fancy,  does  not  now  concern  us ;  for  whichever  view  be  accepted, 
its  substantial  truth  is  evident,  namely,  that  God’s  original  plan 
in  Creation  for  a  Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity  was  not  then 
realized.  When  the  alternative  was  presented  to  Adam  and 
Eve,  either  to  refrain  from  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  and, 
in  so  doing,  to  obey  God’s  will,  thus  founding  the  Kingdom  and 
establishing  His  sovereignty  over  humanity,  or,  to  eat  of  the 
accursed  tree,  thus  disobeying  God’s  law  and  violating  His 
will,  they  elected  to  disobey,  and  thereby  declined  to  render 
that  conscious  and  willing  obedience  which  nature  renders  un¬ 
consciously  but  spontaneously  to  the  Creator.  Consequently, 
all  hope  of  a  Kingdom  of  God  in  nature  and  humanity  alike, 
bound  together  by  a  common  obedience  to  God’s  will,  for  the 
time  vanished.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity,  indeed, 
became  a  future  possibility  rather  than  a  present  fact.  This 
far-famed  refusal,  initiatory  and  typical  of  humanity’s  course 
in  the  future,  also  brought  discord  into  a  world  in  which  har¬ 
mony  should  have  reigned,  and  issued  in  sin  and  death.  Milton 
rightly  sings: 


30 


Jesus’  Idea 


“Of  man’s  first  disobedience  and  the  fruit 
Of  that  forbidden  tree,  whose  mortal  taste 
Brought  death  into  the  world  and  all  our  woe, 

With  loss  of  Eden.  Till  one  greater  man 
Restore  us  and  regain  the  blissful  seat.” 

Humanity  had,  indeed,  selected  its  path ;  but  over  and  above 
the  rebellious  subjects,  according  to  the  Biblical  representation, 
there  was  still  the  considerate,  yearning  care  of  God.  From 
this  point,  indeed,  the  Old  Testament  gives  a  vivid,  coherent 
and  fascinating  recital  of  God’s  endeavor  to  deliver  man  from 
the  power  of  the  evils,  attendant  and  consequent  upon  his  in¬ 
subordination.  While  the  story  of  the  Fall  may  seem  to  occupy 
but  a  trivial  position  in  the  Bible,  outside  of  Genesis ;  and 
while  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  account  to  us  so  important 
and  suggestive,  is  passed  by  in  almost  entire  silence,  it  does  not 
require  argument  to  convince  the  thoughtful  reader  that  the 
idea,  embodied  in  the  story  of  the  Fall,  is  the  ever-prominent 
idea  underlying  the  subsequent  course  of  events,  and  the  very 
raison  d'etre  of  the  history  which  follows. 

The  earliest  note  of  deliverance,  and  the  prediction  of  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  the  Kingdom  of  God — if  so  much  can  be 
claimed  from  a  passage,  at  best  vague  and  inconclusive — is 
sounded  in  Genesis  3:15: — “I  will  put  enmity  between  thee 
and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall 
bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  its  heel.”  Certainly  if 
there  is  no  clear  promise  of  the  Messiah  here,  as  is  often  alleged 
by  theologians,  notably  by  Martin  Luther,  there  is  at  least  a 
significant  prediction  of  man’s  eternal  warfare  with  evil,  and  a 
slight  foreshadowing,  perhaps,  of  his  ultimate  victory.  The 
subsequent  history  of  Revelation,  however,  is  developed  logically 
from  this  promise,  and  reveals  not  only  the  painful  struggle  of 
humanity  with  evil,  but  the  gradually  developing  plan  of  a 
God  of  Love  for  the  utter  overthrow  of  the  Kingdom  of  Satan, 
and  the  final  establishment,  through  a  mingled  operation  of 
mercy  and  judgment,  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  If 
we  bear  this  in  mind,  the  Old  Testament  especially,  valuable 
as  it  is  for  its  many  ethical  lessons,  becomes  a  more  vital  Book, 
disclosing  not  merely  here  and  there  some  sublime  moral  truth, 
but  rather  the  Universal  Plan  of  the  God  of  all  the  Ages. 

The  Old  Testament,  indeed,  graphically  depicts  the  terri- 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development  31 

ble  events  which  ensued  upon  man’s  refusal  to  conform  to  the 
laws  of  God;  how  the  knowledge  of  His  will  grew  fainter  and 
more  faint,  until  it  bade  fair  to  disappear  entirely;  how  man’s 
desire  and  ability  to  obey  became  weaker  and  weaker,  until  the 
future  appeared  dark  indeed.  While  humanity  was  thus  floun¬ 
dering  in  the  slough  of  self-invited  mire,  that  all  hope  of  a 
future  reclamation  of  mankind  might  not  prove  vain  and  the 
effort  futile,  God  determined  to  begin  anew  with  man.  The 
rebellious  race  was  to  be  destroyed,  with  the  exception  of  the 
righteous  Noah  and  his  family;  the  descendants  of  Seth  were 
to  be  preserved  by  the  Ark  (Gen.  6:5-8).  Noah  and  his  family, 
indeed,  were  to  represent  the  Kingdom  of  God,  for  they 
acknowledged  God’s  authority  and  obeyed  His  will.  Presently, 
Shem,  a  son  of  Noah,  and  his  descendants,  were  chosen  as  the 
line  of  salvation,  the  agents  of  the  contemplated  deliverance 
(Genesis  9:26-27).  Later,  the  line  was  restricted  to  the  fam¬ 
ily  of  Terah,  whose  son,  Abram,  was  a  mighty  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  God  for  the  achievement  of  His  purpose.  The 
early  endeavor,  indeed,  to  keep  alive  allegiance  to  God,  and  to 
preserve  an  adequate  idea  of  the  right  of  God  to  rule  over  men, 
issued  in  the  call  of  him  who  has  been  styled  “the  world- 
historical  figure.”  So  great  was  humanity’s  impetus  away  from 
God,  that  a  strong  personality  and  a  very  marked  individuality, 
seconded  by  the  favor  of  Heaven,  was  necessary  to  check  the 
ruinous  degeneration.  The  needed  instrumentality  God  raised 
up  in  Abraham;  to  him  was  entrusted  the  unique  task  of  pre¬ 
serving  God’s  truth,  which  was  ever  more  and  more  endan¬ 
gered  by  the  prevalent  and  rampant  idolatry.  Leaving  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees  in  obedience  to  the  divine  call,  Abram  journeyed 
toward  the  land  of  Canaan,  where,  removed  from  the  dan¬ 
gerous  distractions  and  the  subtle  temptations  of  the  home- 
environment,  he  might  devote  himself,  with  undivided  atten¬ 
tion,  to  the  task  imposed  upon  him.  There,  a  covenant,  or 
agreement,  was  made  with  him  by  God.  In  virtue  of  his  ready 
obedience  to  the  call,  God  promised :  “I  will  make  of  thee  a 
great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee  and  make  thy  name  great; 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing.  And  I  will  bless  them  that  bless 
thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee,  and  in  thee  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed”  (Genesis  12:2-3). 

Whether  Abraham  was  fully  aware  of  the  significance  of 


32 


Jesus’  Idea 


his  call,  and  his  part  in  the  gracious  purposes  of  God,  or  whether 
the  Hebrews  themselves  were,  in  the  earlier  years  of  their  his¬ 
tory,  or  whether  we  have  in  this  and  similar  passages  appar¬ 
ently  descriptive  of  that  earlier  history,  the  prophetic  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  events  of  a  distant  past  in  the  light  of  a  splendid 
and  more  clearly  understood  present,  in  which  they  know  them¬ 
selves  to  be  the  spokesmen  of  God  and  able,  by  divine  inspira¬ 
tion,  to  trace  the  slender  thread  of  God’s  providence  through 
the  labyrinthine,  and  apparently  chaotic  past,  may  be  an  inter¬ 
esting  question;  but  it  does  not  affect,  whatever  may  be  our 
conclusion,  the  significance  of  the  part  which  the  Father  of  the 
Faithful  played  in  the  early  development  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  And  certainly,  in  subsequent  ages,  that  part  came  to  be 
clearly  understood  and  generally  acknowledged  by  the  He¬ 
brews.  The  choice  of  Abraham,  in  fact,  marked  the  beginning 
of  the  outward  or  external  development  of  the  Kingdom.  Truly 
might  the  later  Jews  say:  “Before  our  Father  Abraham  came 
into  the  world,  God  was,  as  it  were,  only  the  king  of  heaven ;  but 
when  Abraham  came,  he  made  Him  to  be  King  over  heaven 
and  earth.”  Abraham,  indeed,  became  “the  Father  of  the 
Faithful,”  i.  e.,  the  progenitor  of  those  of  every  age  and  clime 
who,  believing  in  God  endeavor  to  fulfil  His  will.  As  such  an 
ancestor,  the  whole  earth  was  to  be  blessed  through  him  and 
his  direct  descendants. 

Later,  this  promise  was  confirmed  to  Isaac  (Genesis  26:2-4). 
Subsequently,  a  similar  promise  was  reiterated  to  Jacob  in  the 
dream  at  Bethel,  when  he  was  fleeing,  at  his  mother’s  instiga¬ 
tion,  from  his  brother’s  wrath.  In  that  sublime  vision  of  the 
Ladder  which  reached  from  earth  to  heaven,  and  upon  which 
the  angels  of  God  were  ascending  and  descending,  Jacob  first 
learned  of  a  communication  existing  between  heaven  and  earth ; 
nay,  more,  despite  the  untowardness  of  past  events,  and  the 
inauspicious  surroundings  of  the  present,  he  learned  that  he 
was  a  rung  in  the  ladder  which  connected  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  (Gen.  28:11-15). 

So,  step  by  step,  may  be  traced  the  gradual  advance  in  the 
fulfilment  of  the  divine  intention,  as  it  is  depicted  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Then  with  Jacob  and  his  sons,  there  enter  upon 
the  scene  the  progenitors  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel,  whose 
advent  compels  us,  in  tracing  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development  33 

to  deal  with  a  nation,  the  nation  of  Israel,  instead  of  with  indi¬ 
viduals  primarily,  as  heretofore.  One  of  the  most  interesting 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament  narrative,  is  that  which  re¬ 
counts,  how,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  the  descendants  of 
Jacob,  through  the  base  treachery  of  the  jealous  brethren,  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  enslaving  of  Joseph,  came  to  dwell  in  the  land  of 
Egypt.  This  apparently  trivial  circumstance  was  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  the  future  well-being  of  Israel.  Had  the  paltry 
tribe  remained  in  Palestine,  it  must  inevitably — at  least,  so  far 
as  human  eye  can  see, — have  perished  at  the  hands  of  the  sur¬ 
rounding  peoples,  or  have  lost  its  identity  through  amalgama¬ 
tion  with  them.  Time,  peace,  and  prosperity  were  the  impera¬ 
tive  necessities  of  the  moment.  These  were  secured  through  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt;  and  there  the  Israelites  were  prepared  for 
national  existence,  through  the  unbroken  prosperity,  which,  at¬ 
tending  their  advent,  characterized  the  reigns  of  many  Pharaohs, 
and  assured  the  opportunity  for  needful  growth,  until  the  band 
of  strangers  in  a  strange  land  had  become  sufficiently  numerous 
to  arouse  the  jealousy  and  animosity  of  their  Egyptian  hosts. 
This  antipathy,  leading  to  strong  coercive  and  preventive  meas¬ 
ures,  sufficed  to  alienate  their  love  for  Egypt  during  the  closing 
years  of  their  sojourn,  and  filled  them  with  an  enthusiasm  for 
liberty.  Thus  did  the  vicissitudes  of  prosperity,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  adversity,  on  the  other,  minister  to  the  gradual 
unfolding  of  God’s  purpose.  The  alienation  from  the  fleshpots 
of  Egypt  was  soon  followed  by  the  Exodus,  which,  under  the 
leadership  of  Moses,  marked  the  beginning  of  the  national  ex¬ 
istence  of  the  Israelites. 

All  of  these  steps,  however,  seem  to  have  been  preparatory, 
and,  while  we  can  trace  readily  their  obvious  importance,  view¬ 
ing  the  history  of  the  earlier  age  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
later  age,  they  do  not  appear  to  be  closely  related  to  the  idea 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Not  so,  however,  is  it  with  the  next 
step,  to  which  the  preceding  stages  were  essential  and  prepara¬ 
tory.  Now  that  the  Israelites  were  grown  into  a  nation,  and 
had  been  delivered  by  Moses,  a  further  and  important  advance 
was  to  be  made.  Henceforth,  God  would  deal  with  the  na¬ 
tion,  as  well  as  with  the  individual,  in  relation  to  the  Kingdom, 
or  rule  of  God.  But  the  incoherent  elements  must  be  welded 
into  a  coherent  nation.  For  this  purpose  the  cowardly  tribes, 


34 


Jesus ’  Idea 


but  recently  rescued  slaves,  were  disciplined  in  the  wilderness, 
and  a  most  solemn  covenant  made  with  them  at  Mt.  Sinai. 
There  the  nation  received  from  God  laws  and  institutions  for 
their  use;  there  the  nation  was  adopted  as  peculiarly  God’s 
People.  “And  Moses  went  up  unto  God,  and  the  Lord  called 
unto  him  out  of  the  mountain,  saying,  ‘Thus  shalt  thou  say  to 
the  house  of  Jacob,  and  tell  the  children  of  Israel:  Ye  have 
seen  what  I  did  unto  the  Egyptians,  and  how  I  bare  you  on 
eagles’  wings,  and  brought  you  unto  myself.  Now,  therefore, 
if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye 
shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  from  above  all  people:  for 
all  the  earth  is  mine.  And  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests ,  and  an  holy  nation  J  (Exodus  19:3-6). 

That  Israel  acceded  to  the  agreement  is  evident  from  Ex. 
24:4-9,  where  the  solemn  ceremonies  which  attended  the  ratifi¬ 
cation  of  the  covenant  are  described.  The  importance  of  this 
step  in  the  developing  plan  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  cannot  be 
over-estimated,  although  it  is  commonly  emphasized  to  the  dis¬ 
paragement,  or  neglect,  of  the  origin  of  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom 
and  the  essential  and  preparatory  stages  which  have  just  been 
considered.  While  the  transition  from  what  might  be  called 
the  individual,  or  tribal  stage,  to  the  national  stage  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God,  ought  to  be  exceptionally  emphasized:  yet  to  lose 
sight  of  the  original  conception  as  it  existed  in  the  mind  of  God, 
and  its  feeble  and  struggling  expression  throughout  the  patri¬ 
archal  period,  is  to  rob  the  idea  of  much  of  its  majesty  and 
splendor.  Instead  of  marking  the  beginning  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  the  step  under  consideration  should  be  regarded  as  the 
most  important  step  forward  in  an  advance  begun  long  since. 

Thus  Israel,  by  express  covenant,  was  to  be  God’s  peculiar 
treasure, — a  Kingdom  of  God,  and,  further, — a  Kingdom  of 
priests,  and  a  holy  (separated)  nation.  When  the  significance 
of  this  expression  is  appreciated,  the  full  meaning  of  this  ad¬ 
vance  in  the  developing  Kingdom  of  God  becomes  apparent. 
A  Kingdom  of  Priests!  Now,  a  priest  may  be  defined  as  one 
who  stands  before  men  for  God,  and  one  who  stands  before  God 
on  behalf  of  men.  In  other  words,  a  priest  is  a  mediator,  a 
reconciler:  one  who  seeks  to  bridge  the  chasm  separating  God 
and  man,  thus  uniting  man  with  God.  This,  then,  was  the 
unique  mission  of  Israel.  Israel  was  to  be  a  domain,  or  realm, 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development  35 

or  obedience  (for  this  is  what  we  have  found  the  word  “king¬ 
dom”  to  mean)  of  those  who,  in  obeying  God  and  serving 
Him,  were  to  act  as  Priests,  seeking  to  bring  God  and  man  into 
harmony.  Israel  was  also  to  become  a  “holy,”  i.  e.,  “separated” 
nation.  This  is  the  significance  of  the  word  “holy”  in  this  con¬ 
nection.  The  word  does  not  denote  moral  rectitude;  it  is  not 
an  attribute  of  character,  but  denotes  whatever  is  separated  or 
consecrated  to  sacred  uses.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  an  Altar  is 
spoken  of  as  the  “Holy  Table”:  not  that  a  Table,  even  if  it  be 
an  Altar,  can  be  “holy”  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  for 
holiness  is  descriptive  of  character.  The  Altar  is  the  Holy 
Table,  in  that  it  is  set  apart  for  religious  and  sacred  purposes. 
Thus  Israel,  as  a  nation,  was  set  apart,  or  separated  of  God, 
for  His  own  sacred  purposes:  to  minister,  in  some  marked 
way,  to  the  august  plan  of  the  Deity. 

Thus  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  ever  entering  more 
noticeably,  and  the  rule  of  God  becomes  more  and  more  a  defi¬ 
nite  end.  Hence  the  title  applied  by  Josephus  to  the  nation’s 
constitution  is  both  correct  and  expressive.  Israel  was  a  the¬ 
ocracy — a  Kingdom  of  God.1 

Unfortunately,  this  idea  of  a  people  wholly  consecrated  to 
God  was  never  fully  realized,  for,  from  the  time  of  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  the  covenant  itself,  rebellion  and  unfaithfulness  were 
rife.  Yet  the  adequate  conception  of  such  a  Kingdom  had  been 
gained  and  was  at  work  in  the  minds  of  men. 

But  now  that  God  had  a  nation,  the  nation  must  have  a 
home:  such  was  the  land  of  Canaan.  That  the  people,  settling 
by  tribes  here  and  there  should  lack  a  central  authority  and 
present  a  memorable  spectacle  of  anarchy  and  license,  need  not 
surprise  us,  in  view  of  their  past  history.  Their  state,  or  con¬ 
dition,  is  aptly  described  as  one  in  which  “Every  man  did  that 
which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes,”  and  “there  was  none  in  the 
land  possessing  authority.”  Stability  and  security,  indeed,  were 
alone  gained  at  intervals  through  the  various  leaders,  who 
arose  from  time  to  time,  and  whose  brilliant  military  exploits 
commended  them  as  suitable  rulers  of  the  people.  They  were 
called  Judges.  To  this  era  belonged  Deborah  and  Barak, 
Gideon,  Jepthah,  and  Samson.  The  life  of  this  time  is  dark 

xThe  word,  theocracy,  is  derived  from  the  Greek  theos,  meaning 
God;  and  kratein,  signifying  “to  rule/’ 


3^ 


Jesus’  Idea 


indeed ;  its  hues  are  mostly  sad  and  somber,  yet  we  cannot  doubt 
that  some  pleasing  features  were  contributed  by  those  in  whom 
the  conception  of  the  Kingdom  was  an  illuminating  force.  It  is 
probable  that  the  beautiful  idyl  of  Ruth  and  Naomi  reveals 
the  sweet  and  simple  life  of  many  of  God’s  people  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges. 

Manifestly,  the  continuance  of  so  chaotic  a  condition  por¬ 
tended  even  worse  degeneration.  The  people,  indeed,  actually 
suffered  more  and  more  through  incompetent  leaders,  as,  for 
instance  under  Eli  and  his  sons.  While  relief  might  be  given, 
from  time  to  time,  by  the  appearance  of  so  capable  a  leader  as 
Samuel,  yet  the  whole  trend  of  events  was  from  bad  to  worse. 
Nor  was  the  mind  of  Israel  blind  to  the  sad  and  disquieting 
condition  of  affairs.  The  people,  indeed,  were  fully  aware  of 
the  state  of  disunion  and  disorder  which  led  to  such  results. 
The  logic  of  events,  and  the  need  of  the  hour,  pointed  to  a 
King.  The  nations  about  them  were  ruled  by  kings,  and  why 
should  not  Israel  have  the  same  advantage?1 

Thus  the  idea  of  kingship  entered  naturally  into  the  life 
of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  subsequent  events  were  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  lend  convincing  eloquence  to  this  idea.  The  de¬ 
sired  stability  and  union,  indeed,  could  alone  be  obtained  by 
imitating  the  neighboring  peoples  in  the  inauguration  of  a  king¬ 
dom.  This  conviction,  shared,  no  doubt,  by  many,  became 
focussed,  as  it  were,  in  the  mind  of  the  Heaven-enlightened  seer, 
Samuel.  He,  conscious  of  the  imperative  need  and  appreciating 
thoroughly  the  situation,  did  not  hesitate  to  act.  In  Saul,  the 
son  of  Kish,  he  found  the  man,  whose  courage,  youth,  energy, 
patriotism,  and  imposing  mien,  fitted  him  for  the  mastery. 
Thus  we  have  Saul  anointed  as  leader  over  Israel,  and  sub¬ 
sequently  made  King.2 

In  the  institution  of  the  Monarchy,  an  advance  of  decided 
importance  is  made  in  the  developing  Kingdom  of  God.  God’s 
people  were  no  longer  to  be  ruled  by  Him  alone:  they  were 

1  This  question  had  arisen  at  an  earlier  time  than  that  of  which 
we  write.  In  the  days  of  Gideon,  the  people  were  alive  to  the  advan¬ 
tages  of  a  monarchical  rule — even  a  hereditary  monarchy.  To 
Gideon  they  said,  “Rule  thou  over  us,  both  thou  and  thy  son,  and 
thy  son’s  son  also.” 

2  See  Appendix  D,  “The  Institution  of  the  Monarchy.” 


Origin  and  Pre-Christian  Development  37 

to  be  governed  by  a  visible  King ,  the  representative  or  viceger¬ 
ent  of  God,  who  was  prophetic  of  God’s  Anointed,  yet  to  come, 
the  ideal  King  of  God’s  everlasting  Kingdom.  Thus  the  idea 
of  a  single  ruler  over  God’s  people  is  introduced ;  an  idea  des¬ 
tined  to  play  a  most  important  part  in  the  later  history  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God. 

The  Monarchy,  founded  under  Saul,  was  consolidated  and 
extended  under  David.  King  David,  despite  the  shadows  of  his 
later  life,  is  spoken  of  as  a  man  after  God’s  own  heart,  and 
when  judged  in  accordance  with  the  standards  of  his  age,  amply 
deserves  the  title.  It  is  to  him  that  a  promise,  somewhat  akin 
to  those  recorded  in  the  earlier  portion  of  our  narrative,  is  made 
by  God.  “And  when  thy  days  be  fulfilled,  and  thou  shalt  sleep 
with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee,  which  shall 
proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom. 
.  .  .  I  will  establish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  forever.  .  .  . 
And  thine  house  and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  forever 
before  thee;  thy  throne  shall  be  established  forever”  (II  Sam. 
7:12-16). 

The  intimate  relationship  that  Israel’s  king  was  to  bear 
to  God  is  evident  from  a  careful  perusal  of  such  a  passage  as 
II  Sam.  7:12-16.  The  king  is  regarded  as  the  mouthpiece  of 
God,  representing  Him  in  every  respect,  and  ruling,  not  in  his 
own  name  and  right,  but  in  the  name  of  God,  and  for  Him.  It 
is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  while  there  was  a  more  or  less 
constant  effort  to  realize  the  ideal  of  the  nation  as  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God,  and  of  the  King,  as  the  typical  representative  of 
God,  the  ideal  was  very  imperfectly  realized,  even  under  David ; 
and  less  so  under  Solomon,  with  whom  as  sovereign  the  king¬ 
dom  attained  the  zenith  of  its  earthly  glory.  Nor  was  it  real¬ 
ized  under  the  best  of  the  kings  after  the  division  of  the  King¬ 
dom;  even  Josiah  and  Hezekiah  did  not  adequately  represent 
the  theocracy.  This  now  brings  us  to  the  conception  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  entertained  by  the  prophets. 

We  have  found  that  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  was  restricted 
to  families  or  tribes  during  the  Patriarchal  period,  and  that  it 
was  somewhat  obscure;  that  it  became  national  in  extent  and 
more  definite  in  idea  during  the  Mosaic  period ;  that  to  the 
idea  of  the  visible  Kingdom  was  added  the  conception  of  a 


38 


Jesus’  Idea 


visible  King,  the  representative  of  God,  during  the  Monarchical 
period.  Let  us  now  inquire  as  to  the  distinctive  Prophetic  con¬ 
tribution  to  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom,  during  what  may 
be  termed  the  Prophetic  period  of  Israel’s  history. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA 

That  Israel  was  possessed  of  a  magnificent  ideal,  which 
Israel  had  never  fulfilled,  was  perfectly  apparent  to  the  Proph¬ 
ets.  At  the  same  time,  the  hope  and  the  belief  that  Israel  would 
some  day  fulfil  the  ideal  was  grounded  firmly  in  the  prophetic 
heart.  No  failure,  however  dire,  could  dispel  it,  no  disaster 
crush  it.  The  most  salient  and  amazing  characteristic  of  the 
prophets,  indeed,  is  their  sublime  and  invincible  optimism,  when 
pessimism  seemed  more  natural  and  sensible.  Even  when  the 
possibility  of  Israel’s  realizing  her  high  destiny  seemed  least,  the 
prophetic  conviction  that  Israel  would  fulfil  her  destiny,  shone 
brightest.  One  thing,  however,  was  absolutely  certain:  the 
coming  consummation  of  their  hopes  would  be  in  the  future. 
The  disruption  of  the  Kingdom,  the  evil  days  that  overtook 
the  Kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  before  their  fall,  the  vio¬ 
lence  within  as  well  as  without,  their  final  overthrow,  and  the 
humiliation  and  captivity  of  the  nation,  caused  the  prophets  to 
look  to  the  future  for  the  fulfilment  of  that  dream  which  was 
dearer  to  them  than  life  itself.  God  had  promised  and  He 
could  not  lie:  His  Kingdom  would  come.  The  perfect  King 
would  appear:  when,  they  did  not  know,  but  come,  He  would. 
Such  was  the  prophetic  reasoning.1 

1  Isaiah,  for  instance,  declares,  “Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive, 
and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel,”  i.e.,  “God  with 
us”  (7:14).  Again  we  find  him  declaring  with  all  the  intensity  of 
his  prophetic  soul,  “Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given, 
and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder ;  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  mighty  God,  The  ever¬ 
lasting  Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  gov¬ 
ernment  and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David, 
and  upon  his  kingdom ,  to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judgment 
and  with  justice,  from  henceforth  even  forever.  The  zeal  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts  will  perform  this”  (9:6-7).  No  better  conception  of 
the  King  and  the  Kingdom,  and  no  better  witness  to  the  prophetic 
conviction  that  this  splendid  dream  will  be  realized  can  be  found 
in  the  prophetic  literature  than  that  furnished  to  us  by  Isaiah  in 
the  words  just  quoted. 


39 


40 


Jesus’  Idea 


Further,  when  the  King  and  the  Kingdom  have  come,  then 
will  Israel  fulfil  her  destiny,  becoming  in  very  truth  a  Kingdom 
of  Priests  who  reconcile  the  nations  to  God.  The  universal 
aspect  of  Israel’s  mission  breaks  forth  clear  and  strong  in  the 
prophetic  literature.  National  insignificance  and  humiliation 
could  not  break  the  vision.  The  prophets,  indeed,  looked  for¬ 
ward  with  the  utmost  confidence  to  the  time  when  God’s  sov¬ 
ereignty  should  be  realized,  not  only  over  Israel  but  over  all 
the  earth.1  More  and  more,  however,  did  it  become  evident  to 
the  prophets  eagerly  awaiting  the  consummation  of  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  hope,  that  the  true  theocracy  would  not  be  inaugurated 
by  even  such  kings  as  Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  and  that  it  could 
not  be  realized  in  the  midst  of  the  prevailing  conditions.  In 
consequence,  higher  and  more  spiritual  conceptions  of  the  com¬ 
ing  Kingdom  became  apparent.  The  new  covenant  is  to  differ 
somewhat  from  the  old.  It  is  to  be  an  inner  rather  than  an 
outer  thing;  upon  the  heart  rather  than  upon  tables  of  stone.2 

1  Micah  writes :  “But  in  the  last  days  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  shall  be  established  on  the 
top  of  the  mountains,  and  it  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills ;  and 
the  people  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many  nations  shall  come  and  say, 
Come,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the 
house  of  the  God  of  Jacob;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and 
we  will  walk  in  his  paths;  for  the  law  shall  go  forth  of  Zion,  and 
the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  he  shall  judge  among 
many  people,  and  rebuke  strong  nations  afar  off ;  and  they  shall 
beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning- 
hooks :  and  nation  shall  not  lift  up  a  sword  against  nation,  neither 
shall  they  learn  war  any  more”  (4:1-3).  Isaiah  42:6-7  is  equally 
explicit:  “I  the  Lord  have  called  thee  in  righteousness,  and  will 
hold  thine  hand,  and  will  keep  thee,  and  will  give  thee  for  a 
covenant  of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles;  To  open  the 
blind  eyes,  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the  prison,  and  them 
that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison  house.” 

2  Jeremiah  voices  this  conception :  “Behold,  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah;  not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I 
made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  days  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand, 
to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  which  my  covenant  they 
break,  although  I  was  an  husband  unto  them,  saith  the  Lord ;  But 
this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  unto  the  house  of  Israel ; 
After  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward 
parts ,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  be  their  God,  and  they 
shall  be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his 
neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the  Lord:  for 


The  Development  of  the  Idea 


4i 


Together  with  this  lofty  conception  of  the  Kingdom,  and,  no 
doubt,  because  of  it,  there  comes  a  nobler  view  of  the  coming 
King.  It  is  felt  that  if  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom  is  lofty  and 
spiritual,  the  King  of  the  Kingdom  should  bear  a  very  close 
relationship  to  God.  Thus  the  founder  of  the  Kingdom  was 
regarded  with  an  ever-increasing  reverence  by  Israel.  His 
person  and  His  prerogatives  were  constantly  magnified.1  It 
ought  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  throughout  the  Old 
Testament,  the  chief  interest  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The 
importance  of  the  Messiah,  or  the  coming  King,  lay  in  the 
fact  that  he  was  to  be  the  medium  of  the  Kingdom.  Great  as 
he  was,  he  was  only  of  importance  in  relation  to  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  This  truth  has  been  lost  sight  of  by  the  Christian 
Church  to  a  great  extent.  The  relationship,  indeed,  has  been 
reversed.  The  Person  of  the  Messiah  is  everything,  the  King- 


they  shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest 
of  them,  saith  the  Lord”  (31:31-34).  Ezekiel  speaks  in  the  same 
strain :  “A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will 
I  put  within  you;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my 
spirit  within  you;  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye 
shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them”  (36:25-27).  Joel  also 
gives  us  a  passage  of  emphatic  significance.  “And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  afterward  that  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  your 
sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  your  old  men  shall  dream 
dreams,  your  young  men  shall  see  visions :  And  also  upon  the 
servants,  and  upon  the  handmaids  in  those  days  will  I  pour  out 
my  Spirit”  (2:28,  29). 

1  Of  this  tendency,  Micah  affords  an  interesting  illustration :  “But 
thou,  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  thou¬ 
sands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that 
is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old, 
from  everlasting”  (5  :2).  The  coming  King  is,  according  to  a  com¬ 
mon  interpretation,  referred  to  thus  by  Daniel :  “I  saw  in  the 
night  visions,  and  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  Man  came  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  Days,  and  they 
brought  him  near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion 
and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages 
should  serve  him :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which 
shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be 
destroyed”  (7:13,  14).  Malachi  declares:  “Behold,  I  will  send  my 
messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me:  and  the  Lord, 
whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger 
of  the  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in :  behold,  he  shall  come,  saith 
the  Lord  of  hosts”  (3:1). 


42 


Jesus’  Idea 


dom  somewhat  subordinate. 

There  entered  at  this  time,  also,  from  a  due  appreciation 
of  the  inward  and  spiritual  character  of  the  new  Covenant,  or 
Kingdom,  a  keen  and  painful  sense  of  the  great  labor  and  diffi¬ 
culty  involved  in  its  introduction.  Because  of  the  presence  of 
human  sin  and  human  opposition,  the  heralds  of  the  Kingdom, 
despite  their  relation  to  God  and  His  majestic  attributes,  must 
perform  their  task  at  the  expense  of  toil  and  suffering.  Their 
life,  indeed,  was  to  be  a  path  of  thorns.  So  we  have  the  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Suffering  Servant  of  God,  that  “in  which  all  the 
prophetic  force  of  the  genius  of  Israel  seemed  concentrated” 
(Isa.  52:14;  53).  The  idea  is  that  he  who  would  do  God’s 
will,  and  seek  to  persuade  men  to  God’s  allegiance,  must  ex¬ 
pect  to  suffer.  This  truth,  indeed,  had  already  been  most 
signally  illustrated  in  the  history  of  God’s  Chosen  People,  and 
in  the  persons  of  their  most  illustrious  men, — Joseph,  Moses, 
David,  and  many  of  the  Prophets.1 

As  to  the  form  of  the  Kingdom,  with  that  seemingly  irre¬ 
sistible  tendency  of  human  nature  to  idealize  the  past,  often 
to  the  sad  neglect  of  the  present,  the  coming  Kingdom  was 
viewed  as  assuming  Davidic  splendor.  The  nation  would  be 
restored  and  re-united,  so  Ezekiel  fondly  painted  (Ez.  37)  ; 
Isaiah  sees  the  nation  purified  and  converted  with  all  former  in¬ 
stitutions  in  full  vigor  and  effectiveness  (Isaiah  1 :25-27).  Israel, 
indeed,  would  attain  the  zenith  of  her  glory,  while  the  sur¬ 
rounding  nations,  to  whom  had  been  given  the  knowledge  of 
the  true  God,  would  be  incorporated  with  the  Chosen  people 
(Isaiah  2:23),  or  tributary  to  them  (Isaiah  60).  Such,  sub¬ 
stantially,  was  the  prophetic  conception,  although  different 
prophets  might  emphasize  individual  aspects  or  characteristics 
of  the  Kingdom,  according  to  their  individuality  or  the  time  in 
which  they  lived.  To  Isaiah,  the  great  prophet-statesman  of 
the  turbulent  times  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  the  Kingdom  ap¬ 
peared  as  a  state  in  the  very  height  of  political  and  material 
prosperity.  To  Jeremiah,  in  the  sad  and  evil  days  of  Judah’s 
decline  and  fall,  the  Kingdom  assumed  a  decidedly  ethical 
character:  his  dream  was  of  a  reformed  people.  While  to  the 
brightening  vision  of  the  Second  Isaiah,  in  the  happy  days  of  the 

1  This  aspect  of  God’s  service  is  also  most  pathetically  set  forth 
in  the  22nd  Psalm. 


The  Development  of  the  Idea 


43 


return  from  exile,  the  Kingdom  seemed  to  be  distinctively  reli¬ 
gious — Israel,  fulfilling  her  high  destiny  as  the  religious  teacher 
of  the  nations. 

There  appeared,  however,  during  the  Prophetic  Period,  an 
idea  of  great  importance  to  our  study.  In  the  early  days  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  the  state  or  nation  as  a  whole,  was  identi¬ 
fied  with  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  bounds  of  the  one  were 
the  bounds  of  the  other.  Every  Hebrew,  as  a  Hebrew,  was  a 
member  of  the  theocracy.  The  Kingdom  was  the  entire  na¬ 
tion.  Later  in  their  history,  however,  and  especially  in  the  era 
of  the  prophets,  this  idea  experienced  a  novel  development. 
We  find  the  conception  of  a  theocracy  within  a  theocracy,  a 
church  within  a  church,  a  Kingdom  of  God  within  the  sup¬ 
posed  Kingdom  of  God.  This  is  a  peculiarity  of  even  the  earlier 
prophets.  Amos  and  Hosea,  for  instance,  while  they  predict  in 
unsparing  terms,  a  due  and  dire  punishment  for  the  people’s 
sins,  yet,  as  emphatically  declare  that  a  remnant  would  survive 
and  be  true  to  Jehovah.  This  doctrine  of  a  remnant,  indeed,  is 
a  marked  characteristic  of  the  prophetic  writings.  No  matter 
how  dark  and  threatening  the  impending  night,  a  brighter  day 
would  dawn,  with  at  least  a  remnant  true  to  God. 

While  this  idea  is  met  with  in  the  earlier  prophets,  Elijah, 
for  instance,  it  received  a  more  pronounced  development  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  nation’s  history  as  a  Kingdom.  To  the 
enlightened  vision  of  the  prophets,  their  people,  as  a  whole, 
seemed  to  be  doomed.  God’s  patience  was  exhausted.  Hence 
we  notice  that  their  efforts  are  bent  toward  the  salvation  of  a 
remnant  of  the  people,  this  remnant  to  do  the  work  for  God. 
Thus  was  the  idea  introduced  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was 
not  co-extensive  with  the  nation,  and  not  rightly  the  possession 
of  every  Hebrew  in  virtue  of  his  birth.  Rather  was  the  King¬ 
dom  restricted  to  a  portion  of  the  nation,  and  the  possession  of 
those  Hebrews  alone,  whose  integrity  of  heart  and  life  en¬ 
titled  them  to  it.1  This  narrowing  of  the  conception  seems 
strangely  prophetic  of  Our  Lord’s  action  in  choosing  His  band 

1  This  tendency  to  restrict  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  is  conspicu¬ 
ously  exemplified  in  the  conduct  of  Isaiah  (8:16-18)  :  “Bind  up  the 
testimony,  seal  the  law  among  my  disciples.  And  I  will  wait  upon 
the  Lord  that  hideth  his  face  from  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  I  will 
look  for  him.  Behold,  I,  and  the  children  whom  the  Lord  hath 


44 


Jesus’  Idea 


of  disciples  from  the  midst  of  a  nation  which,  as  a  whole,  would 
not  heed  His  call.  It  is  eternally  prophetic  also  of  the  truth 
that  “great  achievements  made  by  any  people  are  generally  the 
work  of  the  minority.” 

The  Babylonian  Exile  of  the  Chosen  People  did  not  in  any 
way  crush  the  expectation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Rather  did 
it  strengthen  and  intensify  the  conception.  The  prophecies  of 
Daniel,  Ch.  2  and  7,  whether  we  accept  the  traditional  date 
of  the  Book,  or  that  which  modern  scholarship  accords  to  it, 
amply  attests  the  undimmed  splendor  of  the  Messianic  hope. 
H  is  vision  of  a  Kingdom  of  God,  which  should  succeed  the 
four  great  world-kingdoms, — human,  not  brutish  in  character, 
a  Kingdom  inaugurated  of  Heaven,  universal  in  extent,  and 
everlasting  in  time,  is  of  prime  importance  to  our  study  both 
in  its  present  stage  and  in  its  future  development.  This  vision 
of  Daniel,  indeed,  did  more  to  stereotype  the  Jewish  idea  of 
the  coming  Kingdom  than  any  image,  figure,  or  utterance  of 
any  earlier  prophet.  Because  of  the  great  significance  of  Dan¬ 
iel’s  contribution  to  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  it  is  well 
to  quote  the  passage  at  length.  “I  saw  in  the  night  visions, 
and,  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him 
near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion,  and 
glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages, 
should  serve  him :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which 
shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be 
destroyed.  I  (Daniel)  was  grieved  in  my  spirit  in  the  midst 
of  my  body,  and  the  visions  of  my  head  troubled  me.  I  came 
near  unto  one  of  them  that  stood  by,  and  asked  him  the  truth 
of  all  this.  So  he  told  me,  and  made  me  know  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  things.  These  great  beasts,  which  are  four,  are 
four  kings,  which  shall  arise  out  of  the  earth.  But  the  saints 
of  the  most  High  shall  take  the  kingdom,  and  possess  the 

given  me,  are  for  signs  and  for  wonders  in  Israel  from  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  which  dwelleth  in  Mount  Zion.”  Malachi  (3:16)  also 
refers  to  the  intimate  association,  binding  together  those  who 
feared  the  Lord:  “Then  they  that  feared  the  Lord  spake  often  one 
to  another,  and  the  Lord  harkened  and  heard  it,  and  a  book  of 
remembrance  was  written  before  him  for  them  that  feared  the 
Lord,  and  that  thought  upon  his  name.” 


The  Development  of  the  Idea 


45 


kingdom  for  ever,  even  for  ever  and  ever.  And  the  kingdom 
and  dominion  and  the  greatness  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole 
heaven,  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  most 
High,  whose  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  domin¬ 
ions  shall  serve  and  obey  him.”  (Daniel  7:13-19  and  vs.  27). 

Resuming  now  the  thread  of  our  narrative,  and  for  the 
time  being,  according  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  its  traditional  date, 
it  remains  to  say  that  after  the  Exile  we  have  the  teaching  of 
the  Prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah.1  These,  however,  add 
nothing  that  is  new  or  distinctive  to  the  conception  of  the  king¬ 
dom.  On  the  other  hand,  Malachi,  who  is  the  last  of  the 
prophetic  voices  of  the  Old  Testament,  speaks  of  the  coming 
Kingdom,  and  adds  that  before  the  advent  of  that  day,  Elijah 
would  be  sent  to  prepare  the  way.  “Behold,  I  will  send  my 
messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me”  (3:1). 
“Behold,  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  coming 
of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.  And  he  shall  turn 
the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the 
children  to  their  fathers,  lest  I  come  and  smite  the  earth  with  a 
curse”  (4:5-6). 

Thus  the  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
closes  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  have  endeavored  to  trace  that 
development  in  brief,  concise  outline,  noting  only  the  salient 
steps  of  progress,  until  all  doubt  has  been  dispelled,  and  it  is 
apparent  that  that  which  called  the  Hebrew  nation  into  being, 
and  which  alone  can  explain  the  remarkable  history  of  that 
still  more  remarkable  people,  is  the  Idea  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  Without  this  thread,  the  Old  Testament,  in  its  multitude 
of  details,  is  utterly  unintelligible;  with  it,  the  Old  Testament  is 
not  only  intelligible  but  exceedingly  fascinating.  This  people, 
their  history,  and  their  idea,  indeed,  are  the  most  striking  phe¬ 
nomena  of  Universal  History.  However,  men  may  seek  to  explain 
its  significance,  the  fact  that  such  a  people,  such  a  history,  and 
such  an  idea  were  developed,  is  indisputable.  Explanations,  nat¬ 
uralistic,  diverse,  and  ingenious,  have  been  offered  by  the  subtle 
minds  of  brilliant  and  acute  thinkers  and  students;  but  no  one 
has  been  able  to  convince  the  mass  of  mankind  that  any  ex¬ 
planation  which  fails  to  see  throughout  the  entire  development 
the  finger  of  God  pointing  and  directing  to  a  fulfilment  which 

1  See  Appendix  E,  “The  Character  of  The  Book  of  Daniel.” 


46 


Jesus’  Idea 


bespeaks  human  redemption,  is  worthy  of  acceptation  or  can  ade¬ 
quately  explain  so  marvelous  a  history  and  so  magnificent  a  con¬ 
ception.  However,  much  that  is  foul,  degrading  and  unseemly 
may  be  found  in  the  lives  of  the  great  men,  and  in  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  Israel — and  there  is  a  great  deal — justice  demands  an 
admission  of  the  presence  of  Divinity.  The  words  of  the  late 
President  Harper,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  express  clearly 
the  sanest  conclusion  as  to  the  history  of  Israel.  “It  is  the 
history  of  a  nation,  starting  on  the  level  of  other  nations,  and 
gradually  rising,  through  the  influence  of  great  leaders,  to  a 
more  and  more  noble,  more  and  more  true,  conception  of  God, 
and  with  every  step  upward,  leaving  behind  some  belief  or  cus¬ 
tom  inherited  from  paganism,  which  has  become  inconsistent 
with  the  higher  ideal  of  God.  This  history  exhibits  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  divine  spirit — an  influence  exerted  with  all  the 
strength  of  Almighty  power  acting  in  consistency  with  other  at¬ 
tributes,  and  working  in  the  hearts  of  a  people  held  down  by 
sin.  It  is,  in  short,  the  story  of  a  nation,  lifted  little  by  little 
from  the  lowest  condition  of  nomadism,  and  exhibiting  at 
each  stage  of  progress,  the  weaknesses  and  sins  common  to 
people  at  that  stage  of  advancement.” 

We  are  compelled,  therefore,  to  ask,  Is  not  such  a  history 
prophetic?  Has  the  end  been  attained?  Does  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  this  august  conception  cease  where  we  have  left  it?  Is 
no  new  chapter  to  be  added?  It  seems  to  us  inevitable  that 
something  must  follow.  Order  should  not  issue  in  chaos,  cause 
must  have  its  effect,  means  must  attain  its  end.  The  words 
of  John  Fiske  are  applicable  here:  “God  is  not  like  a  child  that 
builds  a  house  of  cards  to  blow  it  down  again.”  The  Old 
Testament,  indeed,  is  incomplete,  inexplicable,  and  unintelligible 
without  the  New  Testament  ;  the  New  Testament  is  incomplete, 
inexplicable,  and  unintelligible  without  the  Old  Testament. 
The  one  is  preparatory,  the  other  complementary;  both  are 
essential  to  a  harmonious  whole.  We  should  not  expect,  there¬ 
fore,  our  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
to  close  with  the  Prophet  Malachi.  Hence,  we  are  prepared 
to  inquire,  What  is  the  next  step?  For  an  answer,  we  must 
look  elsewhere  than  to  either  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  NIGHT  OF  LEGALISM 

Between  the  death  of  Malachi  and  the  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ,  several  centuries  of  history,  replete  with  interest  and 
significance,  but  unrecorded  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
intervened.  Had  we  access  to  all  the  events  of  this  period, 
they  would  be  found  of  great  importance  to  this  study.  Un¬ 
fortunately,  the  period  is  not  well  known.  During  these  cen¬ 
turies,  however,  there  arose  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  ideas,  con¬ 
ceptions,  and  parties  which  formed  the  background  of  Jewish 
life  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  which,  passively  and  actively, 
waged  incessant  warfare  against  Jesus  and  the  ideas  He  sought 
to  inculcate.  The  Scribes,  the  Pharisees  the  Sadducees,  the 
Essenes,  the  definite  conception  of  a  personal  Messiah,  and 
many  of  the  familiar  institutions  of  the  New  Testament  are 
the  offspring  of  this  era.  This  period  is  rightly  called  “The 
Night  of  Legalism,”  and  it  witnessed  the  rise  of  what  is  com¬ 
monly  known  as  Judaism,  which  represents  the  latest  and  extra- 
Old  Testament  developments  of  Jewish  ideas  and  conceptions. 
Let  us  now  note  some  of  the  tendencies  of  thought  and  life 
which  characterized  it,  and  which  affect  our  study. 

It  would  be  both  interesting  and  profitable  to  trace  in  de¬ 
tail  the  formative  influences  of  this  era  but  space  does  not  per¬ 
mit  us  to  do  so.  We  shall  have  to  content  ourselves  with  the 
chief  fruits  of  the  period,  the  fruits  of  life  and  thought  that 
bear  upon  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  We  shall  be 
concerned  for  the  most  part  with  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and 
the  tendencies  which  they  represent,  and  with  the  marked  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  its 
King. 

The  Babylonian  Exile,  as  may  be  supposed,  had  influenced 
the  Jews  strongly  and  in  many  directions.  One  effect  of  this 
experience  was  to  develop  in  the  remnant  of  the  exiles  who  re- 

47 


48 


Jesus’  Idea 


mained  faithful  to  Jehovah  and  the  Holy  City  an  unpre¬ 
cedented  devotion  to  their  ancestral  religion.  Indeed  every  cus¬ 
tom,  reminiscent  of  the  former  life,  was  assiduously  observed; 
prayer  must  be  offered  with  the  face  toward  Jerusalem;  the 
Sabbath,  the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  fasting,  assumed  in¬ 
creased  importance.  In  every  way  the  ancient  faith  and  prac¬ 
tices  were  stressed.  In  thus  emphasizing  and  safe-guarding 
their  religion,  the  Jews  were  obeying  a  rational  impulse.  They 
felt  fully  and  keenly  that  the  humiliation  of  the  exile  was 
a  deserved  punishment  for  their  disobedience  to  God’s  law, 
their  failure  to  be  God’s  Kingdom.  Hence  the  only  way  to 
regain  and  to  retain  the  favor  of  their  jealous  God  was  by 
scrupulous  devotion  to,  and  exact  compliance  with,  all  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  His  law.  Consequently,  while  every  detail  of  the 
law  would  be  highly  valued,  especial  stress  and  emphasis  would 
be  placed  upon  those  points  of  the  law  in  which  Israel  had  been 
remiss  in  the  past.1  It  thus  happened  that  the  very  essence  of 
Judaism,  i.  e.,  the  religion  of  the  Jews  after  the  Babylonian 
exile,  was  a  slavish  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  law. 

Accompanying  this  tendency  to  exalt  the  law,  we  find 
another  tendency  of  far-reaching  import.  Persons  were  needed 
to  collect,  edit,  and  preserve  the  sacred  books.  This  caused 
the  rise  of  the  literary  class  known  to  us  as  the  Scribes.  The 
Scribes,  however,  were  not  only  to  study  and  to  edit  the 
sacred  literature,  force  of  circumstances  compelled  them  to 
become  the  law’s  interpreters  and  expounders.  Consequently, 
in  the  Scribes  we  have  the  teachers  and  preachers  of  the  time. 
They  were  the  successors  of  the  prophets  of  an  earlier  era. 
From  the  earliest  period  of  their  history,  the  influence  of  the 
Scribes  increased  steadily,  until,  in  process  of  time,  they  became 
the  powerful  and  arrogant  leaders  of  Jewish  thought  and 
opinion.  Soon  they  were  organized  into  bands  or  guilds  for 
the  furtherance  of  their  work.  Indeed,  they  were  the  first 
to  inaugurate  the  movement  for  the  general  education  of  the 
Jewish  masses.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  their  aim  was 

1  Schurer  says,  in  speaking  of  this  tendency :  “Its  every  require¬ 
ment  was  a  requirement  of  God  from  His  people;  its  most  scrupu¬ 
lous  observance  was,  therefore,  a  religious  duty;  nay,  the  supreme, 
and  in  truth  the  sole  religious  duty.  The  whole  piety  of  the  Israelite 
consisted  in  obeying  with  fear  and  trembling,  with  all  the  zeal  of  an 
anxious  conscience,  the  law  given  him  by  God  in  all  its  particulars.” 


The  Night  of  Legalism 


49 


npt  primarily  intellectual  but  practical:  to  influence  their 
brethren  to  practice  the  law.  In  fact,  by  the  strenuous  efforts  of 
the  Scribes,  the  entire  Jewish  people  became  thoroughly  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  details,  requirements,  and  minutiae  of  the 
law,  and  of  the  law  as  interpreted  and  applied  by  them.  In 
this  endeavor  they  were  greatly  assisted  by  the  synagogue,  an¬ 
other  outgrowth  of  this  era. 

While  the  Scribes  were  perfectly  honest  in  their  purposes, 
they  availed  themselves  of  a  method  which  bore  within  itself 
the  seeds  of  death,  and  which  was  most  admirably  adapted 
to  defeat  the  very  end  they  had  in  view — the  preservation 
of  the  integrity  and  the  purity  of  their  ancestral  religion. 
In  interpreting  the  law  and  its  requirements,  the  Scribes  were 
not  direct,  forceful,  and  convincing;  their  method  was  not 
simple  and  natural,  but  forced,  circuitous,  and  artificial;  re¬ 
minding  us  of  much  of  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  that  has  been  current  in  past  ages  and  in  certain  quarters. 
Their  exegesis,  indeed,  consisted  of  a  detailed  and  elaborate 
definition  and  exposition  of  each  command  of  the  law,  and  an 
application  of  these  definitions  to  the  needs  of  daily  life  by 
means  of  excessive  “amplification,  illustration,  and  embellish¬ 
ment.”  The  inevitable  result  of  their  method  was  a  slavish 
literalism  which  often  ignored  the  true  meaning  and  intent  of 
the  law,  and  a  heartless  and  senseless  casuistry,  which  obscured 
the  beauty  and  reasonableness  of  the  inner  spirit  of  the  law. 

The  Pharisees,  another  interesting  product  of  this  era,  were 
the  body  of  Jews  who  claimed  to  live  in  accordance  with  the 
very  letter  of  the  law.  They  composed  a  party  of  orthodox 
Jews,  who  were  more  strict  in  their  observance  of  the  law  than 
the  great  mass  of  their  brethren,  and  who  valued  the  law 
more  highly  than  life  itself.  Little  need  be  said  in  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  close  relationship  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
which  is  so  evident  on  many  pages  of  the  New  Testament, 
inasmuch  as  the  interpreters  of  the  law,  and  those  who  sought 
to  live  in  accordance  with  the  law,  would  be  from  the  first 
very  closely  allied.  They  represented,  in  fact,  the  same  mental 
tendency,  and  were  animated  by  the  same  purpose — the  ex¬ 
altation  of  the  law.  The  name,  Pharisaioi,  whence  the  word 
“Pharisees,”  is  derived  from  an  Aramaic  word,  and  means  “the 
separated  ones.”  Whether  this  name  was  self-chosen  and  self- 


50 


Jesus’  Idea 


applied,  as  some  assert,  or  whether  it  was  an  opprobrious 
epithet  bestowed  by  their  opponents,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
However,  the  separation  referred  to  was  something  more  than 
that  which  characterized  the  ordinary  Jew.  The  Pharisee 
was  like  his  fellow- Jew  in  all  points  save  one:  he  was  not  con¬ 
tent  with  the  strictest  separation  from  the  Gentiles,  but  sought 
to  separate  himself  from  the  mass  of  his  fellow-countrymen. 
And  his  reason  was  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  either 
from  disinclination  or  inability,  did  not  comply  with  all  the 
minute  demands  of  the  law,  especially  in  matters  of  food  and 
cleansings.  Hence,  in  the  minds  of  the  Pharisees,  they  were 
unclean,  and  to  escape  the  defilement  likely  to  ensue  from 
intercourse  with  them,  the  Pharisees  avoided  association  with 
them  as  far  as  possible.  Thus  they  were  “the  separated  ones.” 

One  would  naturally  suppose  that  such  supercilious  self- 
sufficiency  would  have  rendered  the  Pharisees  obnoxious  to 
the  people  generally.  Yet  such  was  not  the  case.  The  Pharisees 
were  the  popular  and  influential  party  of  Judaism — more  in¬ 
fluential  in  fact  than  the  kings  or  the  priests.  The  reasons  for 
this  have  been  succinctly  summarized  as  follows:  “They  had 
more  regard  to  the  public  than  the  Sadducees;  they  were 
milder  as  judges;  they  shared,  and  indeed  nourished,  the  national 
hatred  against  the  Romans;  the  doctrines  they  held  and  taught, 
their  scrupulous  observance  of  the  law,  and  their  outwardly 
strict  and  severe  manner  of  life  caused  them  to  be  revered  as 
pattern  Israelites.”1 

Nevertheless,  the  tendency  of  the  party,  and  its  fruits, 
were  subversive  of  true  religion.  While  the  Pharisees  might 
regard  themselves  as  pre-eminently  the  embodiment  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  on  earth  they  were  in  reality,  as  subsequent 
events  were  to  prove,  the  chief  hindrance  to  its  establishment. 
Indeed,  as  a  party  they  were  proud,  bigoted,  and  narrow;  their 
religion  was  heartless  and  formal;  they  overlooked  the  inner 
demands  of  the  law,  and  were  occupied  with  outward  com¬ 
pliance  with  the  ceremonial  demands  of  the  law.  They  illus¬ 
trate  a  perennial  truth.  Whenever  the  moral  and  ceremonial 
requirements  of  religion  are  found  side  by  side,  human  nature 
always  follows  the  line  of  least  resistance,  and  gravitates  in- 

1  Dr.  Eaton,  in  “Hasting’s  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,”  Art.  “Phari- 


The  Night  of  I,  e  gal  ism 


51 


evitably  toward  the  ceremonial  to  the  neglect  of  the  moral. 
This  is  the  ever-present  and  subtle  danger  in  ritualism,  al¬ 
though  the  devotees  of  ceremonial  in  religion  are  loth  to 
admit  it.  Ceremonial  is,  in  fact,  at  once  the  deadliest  enemy 
of  true  religion,  and  the  congenial  friend  of  hypocrisy.  It  is 
for  this  reason  also  that  the  Priest  is  usually  the  enemy  of 
religion,  while  the  Prophet  is  religion’s  friend,  for  the  Priest 
stands  for  a  complex  and  a  ceremonial  religion,  while  the 
Prophet  is  the  advocate  of  a  simple  and  a  heart-felt  religion. 
Another  fact  of  interest  in  connection  with  the  Pharisees  is 
that  the  whole  Pharisaic  legalism  was  a  natural,  logical,  and 
consistent  development  of  their  idea  of  God  as  primarily  a  Law¬ 
giver  and  a  Judge:  hence  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  God 
was  a  legal  one.  Jesus’  idea  of  God,  however,  was  expressed 
by  the  word  “Father,”  and  hence  the  inevitable  substitution 
in  His  system  of  religion  of  the  personal  and  filial  for  the 
legal  relation  to  God,  and  the  unavoidable  conflict  between  the 
two  types  of  religion. 

A  topic  of  paramount  interest  with  the  Pharisees  was  the 
Messianic  ideas  of  their  Scriptures;  to  these  they  devoted  great 
attention,  and  especially  as  they  felt  more  heavily  the  iron 
heel  of  Rome.  This  brings  us  to  another  fact  of  importance.1 

It  was  during  this  period,  indeed,  that  the  Messianic  Hope — 
the  hope  of  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  Ideal  King — 
received  its  greatest  development.  Especially  did  the  Messianic 
Hope  concentrate  itself  in  the  conception  of  a  personal  Messiah  2 

1  Professor  W.  R.  Smith  says :  “The  scribes,  who,  in  this  period, 
took  the  place  of  the  prophets  as  the  leaders  of  religious  thought, 
were  mainly  busied  with  the  law;  but  no  religion  can  subsist  on 
mere  law ;  and  the  systematization  of  the  prophetic  hopes  and  of 
those  more  ideal  parts  of  the  other  sacred  literature,  which,  because 
ideal  and  dissevered  from  the  present,  were  now  set  in  one  line  with 
the  prophecies,  went  on,  side  by  side,  with  the  systematization  of 
the  law,  by  means  of  a  harmonious  exegesis,  which  sought  to 
gather  up  every  prophetic  image  in  one  grand  panorama  of  the 
issues  of  Israel’s  and  the  world’s  history.” 

a  Let  us  bear  in  mind  that  the  expression,  “Messianic  Prophecy,” 
with  which  we  are  familiar,  may  be  used  in  two  senses.  The  expres¬ 
sion  may  embrace  all  that  pertains  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  its 
consummation ;  it  may  also  be  used  with  regard  to  a  person — the 
Messiah  who  “is,  not  always,  but  often,  a  commanding  figure  in 
this  perfect  condition  of  the  kingdom.”  To  the  average  person 
to-day,  the  expression  signifies  the  latter  and  not  the  former  sense; 


52 


Jesus’  Idea 


While  the  Old  Testament  gives  us  the  cream  of  the  Jewish 
literature  which  arose  before  the  Christian  Era,  it  by  no  means 
exhausts  it.  The  Messianic  conception,  indeed,  was  kept  alive 
and  developed  remarkably  in  the  Apocryphal  and  Apocalyptic 
Books  which  arose  during  this  period.  In  fact,  the  Messianic 
idea,  both  in  its  wider  and  narrower  sense,  received  its  greatest 
development  in  the  pages  of  this  literature  in  the  last  two  cen¬ 
turies  before  Christ. 

The  allusions  are  somewhat  scant  in  the  Apocryphal  Books, 
but  two  possible  references  to  the  expected  personal  deliverer 
are  important.  “Until  there  should  come  a  prophet  to  give 
an  answer  concerning  them”  (i  Mac.  4:46)  ;  “The  Jews  and 
the  priests  were  well  pleased  that  Simon  should  be  their 
leader  and  high  priest  forever,  until  there  should  arise  a  faithful 
prophet”  (R.  V.  1  Mac.  14:41).  The  independence  of  the 
Maccabean  age  was  rather  unfavorable  to  the  Messianic  Hope, 
and  explains  the  few  allusions  to  it.1 

When  we  come  to  the  Apocalyptic  Books,  however,  we 
find  abundant  evidence  of  this  hope.  In  the  Sibylline  Books, 


and  it  is  only  with  difficulty  that  the  mind  can  be  brought  to  see 
that  the  former  is  the  earlier  and  the  preponderating  sense  in  the 
Old  Testament.  To  exalt  the  later  to  the  disparagement  of  the 
earlier  is  to  mistake  the  fundamental  intent  and  content  of  Messianic 
Prophecy.  The  burden  and  theme  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  in  fact,  is 
the  Kingdom  of  God ;  it  is  also  the  burden  and  theme  of  that  litera¬ 
ture  which  Israelitish  history  and  prophecy  combined  to  produce. 

Yet  we  would  not  minimize  the  idea  of  the  coming  king — the 
“Messiah/’  as  he  came  to  be  called.  It  is  apparent,  however,  that 
the  idea  was  a  subordinate  one,  for  some  of  the  prophets,  both 
before  and  during  the  Exile,  as  Nahum,  Zephaniah,  and  Habakkuk, 
made  no  reference  to  the  future  king.  The  conception  which  was 
born  in  the  time  of  the  Monarchy  seems,  in  fact,  to  be  lost  in  the 
time  of  the  Exile.  During  this  period,  and  for  some  time  after¬ 
ward,  the  future  of  the  people  is  the  all-important  subject — not  the 
future  king.  Indeed,  after  the  Exile,  the  prophets  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  voiced  the  opinion  that  as  soon  as  the  Temple  was  com¬ 
pleted  Jehovah  Himself  would  come  and  found  a  Universal  King¬ 
dom.  Before  many  years  have  passed,  however,  the  conception  of 
the  king  to  come  of  David’s  royal  line  becomes  the  prominent 
feature  of  the  Messianic  expectation.  How  he  was  conceived  of, 
and  how  the  character  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  viewed,  we  shall 
soon  see. 

1  The  reader  might  consult  with  profit  2  Mac.  2:18;  Tobit  13  no-14; 
1  Mac.  2  :57;  Judith  16:17. 


The  Night  of  Legalism 


53 


which  are  predictions  in  the  form  of  poetry,  and  are  fashioned 
after  the  heathen  oracles,  we  find  an  elucidation  of  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  Hope  in  its  larger  sense;  mention  of  the  Messianic  King 
is  only  made  at  the  outset.  The  salient  ideas  are  these:  God 
will  send  a  king  from  the  East,  who,  taking  vengeance  on  his 
adversaries,  will  eventually  bring  prosperity  and  peace.  The 
faithful  Israelites  will  live  in  happiness  and  quiet;  while  the 
heathen,  aware  of  Israel’s  prosperity,  will  learn  to  praise  Israel’s 
God,  to  send  gifts  to  His  Holy  Temple,  and  even  to  adopt 
the  law.  Thus  will  the  God-sent  King  be  the  instrument  of  the 
establishment  of  God’s  universal  kingdom,  in  which  the  Law 
shall  be  accepted  and  exalted.  The  name  “Messiah,”  however, 
is  not  used. 

Next  comes  the  Book  of  Enoch.  This  Book  was  well  known 
in  the  time  of  Jesus,  and  it  belongs  to  the  two  centuries  im¬ 
mediately  before  Christ.  In  the  Similitudes,  Chapters  37-70, 
there  is  a  unique  and  well-developed  doctrine  of  a  personal 
Messiah.  We  read  that  suddenly  the  Head  of  Days  will 
come,  and  with  Him  the  Son  of  Man;  there  will  be  a  resur¬ 
rection  of  all  Israel  while  all  judgment  is  given  into  the  hands 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  who  will  execute  judgment  according 
to  man’s  several  deeds.  All  sin  will  be  rooted  out  from  the 
earth,  the  earth  itself  will  be  transformed,  and  the  righteous 
enjoy  the  bliss  of  paradise.  Here  we  notice  that  “the  Mes¬ 
siah  exists  from  the  beginning  (48:2);  he  sits  on  the  throne 
of  God  (45:3;  47:3),  and  possesses  universal  dominion  (62:6)  ; 
and  all  judgment  is  committed  unto  him  (69:27).”  This 
book  exerted  a  vast  influence  upon  Jewish  literature;  in  fact, 
it  is  next  to  Daniel  in  favor,  authority,  and  importance  in  the 
age  of  which  we  write.  Its  influence  upon  the  New  Testament 
is  very  marked,  and  is  illustrated  both  in  “doctrine  and  in 
diction.”  It  is  regarded  by  many  as  the  historical  source  of 
the  New  Testament  designation  of  Our  Lord  as  the  “Son 
of  Man.” 

Decidedly  illustrative  of  the  ideas  of  the  coming  kingdom 
and  king  is  the  so-called  “Psalter  of  Solomon,”  a  production  of 
the  years  between  70  and  40  B.  C.  This  work  was  born  in 
the  age  which  witnessed  the  subjugation  of  Palestine  to  the 
Roman  power  by  Pompey,  and  it  breathes  the  desire  of  every 
devout  and  patriotic  Jew  for  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Davidic 


54 


Jesus’  Idea 


King,  who  should  end  the  oppression  of  the  foreign  nation, 
and  prove  the  successful  opponent  of  unrighteousness  and 
heathenism.  Pharisaic  thought  and  aspiration  confront  us  on 
every  hand.  Here,  to  quote  the  words  of  Schurer,  “We  meet 
with  the  Messianic  King  depicted  in  sharper  outlines  and  fuller 
colors  in  the  Psalterimn  Solomonis  1 

In  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  which  are  para¬ 
phrases  or  free  translations  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Prophets 
into  the  Aramaic  tongue,  many  opinions  and  biblical  interpreta¬ 
tions  which  were  current  in  the  time  of  Our  Lord  are  revealed. 
Many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  are  interpreted  in  a  Mes¬ 
sianic  sense.  For  instance,  the  word  “Shiloh”  of  Genesis  49:10 
is  applied  to  the  personal  Messiah,  and  we  read:  “The  wielder 
of  power  shall  not  pass  away  from  the  house  of  Judah,  nor 
the  scribe  from  his  sons’  sons  forever  until  that  the  anointed 
one  come  to  whom  belongs  the  kingdom  and  to  him  shall 
the  people  submit  themselves.”  This  interpretation,  far-fetched 

1  Speaking  of  the  author  of  this  book,  Schurer  says :  “He  hopes 
that  God  will  raise  up  a  prince  of  the  house  of  David  to  rule  over 
Israel,  to  crush  their  enemies,  and  to  cleanse  Jerusalem  from  the 
heathen.  (17:23-27.)  He  will  gather  a  holy  people,  and  will  judge 
the  tribes  of  the  nation,  and  not  suffer  unrighteousness  in  their 
midst;  he  will  divide  them  in  the  land  according  to  their  tribes, 
and  no  stranger  shall  dwell  among  them  (17:28-31).  The  heathen 
nations  will  serve  him,  and  will  come  to  Jerusalem,  to  bring  the 
wearied  children  of  Israel  as  gifts,  and  to  see  the  glory  of  the  Lord. 
He  is  a  righteous  king,  and  one  taught  of  God  (17:32-35).  And 
there  is  no  unrighteousness  in  his  days,  for  all  are  saints.  And 
their  king  is  the  Lord’s  anointed.  He  will  not  place  his  trust  in 
horse  or  rider.  For  the  Lord  Himself  is  his  King.  And  he  will 
strike  the  earth  with  the  word  of  his  mouth  forever  (17:36-39). 
He  will  bless  the  people  of  the  Lord  with  wisdom;  and  he  is  pure 
from  sin;  and  he  will  rule  over  a  great  people,  and  not  be  weak. 
For  God  makes  him  strong  by  His  Holy  Spirit.  He  will  lead  them 
all  in  holiness,  and  there  is  no  pride  among  them  (17:40-46).  This 
is  the  beauty  of  the  King  of  Israel.  Happy  are  they  who  are  born 
in  his  days  (17:47-51).  The  writer  expects,  as  it  appears,  not  Godly 
kings  in  general  of  David’s  house,  but  a  single  Messiah  endowed  by 
God  with  miraculous  powers,  pure  from  sin  and  holy  (17:41-46), 
whom  God  has  made  wise  and  powerful  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (17:2), 
and  who  therefore  strikes  his  enemies  not  with  external  weapons, 
but  with  the  word  of  his  mouth  (17:39  after  Isa.  11:4).  He  is, 
hoivever,  notunthstanding  such  idealism,  represented  as  quite  a 
zvorldly  ruler,  as  an  actual  king  of  Israel ’’  (“The  Jewish  People 
in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,”  Div.  11,  Vol.  11,  p.  142). 


The  Night  of  Legalism 


55 


and  unreal  as  it  is,  was  the  popular  interpretation  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  (cf.  St.  Jn.iiig,  6:14,  7:31).  Other  examples  might 
be  cited.  Perhaps  it  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  much  of 
the  antagonism  exhibited  by  many  Christians  toward  Higher 
Criticism,  and  the  Higher  Critic,  is  due  to  the  love  of  supposed 
orthodoxy  for  the  Targum  misinterpretation  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  Scriptures,  whereas  the  Higher  Critic  is  really  con¬ 
tending  for  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  when  shorn  of  Jewish 
and  Christian  perversions. 

Interesting  also  in  its  bearing  upon  the  Messianic  Hope  is 
the  “ Assumptio  Mosis.”  This  book  probably  dates  in  the 
period  from  4  B.  C.  to  30  A.  D.  Here  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  to  be  established  by  God  Himself,  and  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  Messianic  King.  The  Messianic  Hope  is, 
however,  a  glowing  one.  After  describing  a  time  of  great 
trouble,  the  author  says:  “Then  will  his  kingdom  appear  among 
all  creatures,  and  the  devil  will  have  an  end,  and  sorrow 
will  disappear  with  him.  Then  will  the  Heavenly  One  arise 
from  the  seat  of  his  kingdom,  and  will  come  from  his  holy 
habitation  with  wrath  and  anger  for  his  children’s  sake,  and 
the  earth  will  tremble  to  its  ends,  and  the  high  mountains  be 
lowered,  and  the  hills  fall.  The  sun  will  give  no  light,  and 
the  moon  be  changed  into  blood,  and  the  stars  fall  into  con¬ 
fusion.  And  the  sea  will  retreat  to  the  abyss,  and  the  water- 
springs  fail,  and  the  rivers  be  dried  up.  Then  will  the  most 
High  God,  the  alone  Eternal,  come  forth  to  chastise  the 
heathen,  and  to  destroy  all  idols.  Then  wilt  thou  be  happy, 
O  Israel,  and  will  tread  upon  the  neck  and  wings  of  the 
eagle.  And  God  will  exalt  thee  and  make  thee  soar  to  the 
firmament,  and  thou  will  thence  look  down  upon  thine  enemies 
on  earth,  and  shalt  see  them  and  rejoice,  and  give  thanks,  and 
acknowledge  thy  Creator.” 

It  is  necessary  to  mention  only  one  other  writing,  namely 
the  Book  of  Jubilees.  This  book  is  of  great  value  in  showing 
the  popular  idea  of  the  law  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  The 
contents  of  the  book  are  claimed  to  be  a  revelation  to  Moses  on 
Mt.  Sinai,  and  the  author  endeavors  to  “carry  the  Jewish 
cultus  back  into  the  patriarchal  or  even  pre-Adamite  period.” 
Here  too  is  found  a  glowing  Messianic  expectation.  Because 
it  adds  nothing  of  moment  to  the  picture  already  sketched,  we 


Jesus’  Idea 


56 

do  not  quote  it.  Its  insistence  upon  the  longevity  of  mankind 
in  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  however,  upon  freedom  from  old 
age  and  weariness  of  life,  and  its  exultant  exaltation  of  Israel 
to  a  proud  position  of  world  empire  are  noteworthy. 

From  our  hurried  sketch  of  the  Messianic  Expectation  two 
things  must  have  impressed  the  reader:  First,  in  marked  con¬ 
trast  to  the  extreme  rigidity  of  the  scribal  interpretation  of  the 
law,  the  interpretation  of  the  Messianic  Hope  allowed  the  play 
of  human  fancy  to  a  marked  degree.  If  we  look  for  a  concep¬ 
tion  harmonious  in  all  its  details,  we  shall  look  in  vain.  While 
fundamentally  the  conception  is  the  same,  its  amplification 
presents  varying  features,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  moment.  Sec¬ 
ondly,  the  idea  so  beautifully  elaborated  in  the  fifty-third  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  only  at 
the  cost  of  and  by  means  of  suffering  plays  but  little  part  in 
the  conception.  It  is  most  remarkable  that  an  idea  so  striking 
and  so  original  should  have  had  such  slight  effect  upon  sub¬ 
sequent  Jewish  thought.  Such  an  idea  was  apparently  foreign 
to  the  Jewish  mind  in  the  time  of  Our  Lord,  and  it  remained 
for  the  Carpenter  of  Galilee  to  harmonize  the  two  apparently 
antagonistic  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament — that  of  the  Davidic 
King  and  the  Suffering  Servant  of  the  Lord.  Having  taken  a 
rapid  historical  survey  of  the  Messianic  Hope,  let  us  conclude 
by  presenting  in  summary  the  integral  factors  of  the  Messianic 
Expectation  as  they  existed  in  the  mind  of  the  Jewish  populace 
in  the  time  of  Christ. 

Almost  without  exception,  an  era  of  perplexity  and  trouble 
was  thought  of  as  the  prelude  to  the  Messiah’s  advent.  Dire 
omens  on  earth,  in  the  sky,  and  in  the  sea  would  announce  the 
period.  Elijah,  the  prophet,  would  return  to  prepare  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  way  (Mai.  3:23-24).  Others  looked  for  “the  prophet  like 
Moses”  (Deut.  18:15)  ;  others  awaited  Jeremiah  or  some  of  the 
prophets  to  appear  as  heralds  of  the  Messiah  (St.  Mt.  16:14). 
After  the  appearance  of  the  herald,  the  Messiah  Himself  was 
to  appear  and  dethrone  the  powers  of  the  world  (Book  of 
Enoch;  Sibyll.  hi.  652-656;  Ps.  Solom.  17:24,  26,  27,  etc). 
The  time  of  the  Messiah’s  coming  was  conditional  upon  the 
repentance  of  Israel,  and  their  faithful  observance  of  the  law. 
He  was  to  come  suddenly ,  and  from  Bethlehem,  where  he  would 
live  in  quiet  and  obscurity  until  the  time  of  his  appearing  drew 


The  Night  of  Legalism 


57 


near,  when  he  would  issue  suddenly  from  concealment,  and 
prove  his  Messiahship  to  all  by  numerous  miracles  (St.  Jno. 
7:27;  St.  Mt.  11:14;  St.  Lu.  7:22).  Upon  his  appearance, 
the  wTorld-powers  would  gather  together  against  him  (Sibyll. 
663,  Enoch  90:16  etc.).  This  attack  was  led,  according  to 
the  belief  of  some,  by  an  arch-opponent  of  the  Messiah — an 
“Antichrist”  (St.  Jno.  1:18-22;  4:2;  11  St.  Jno.  7 ;  1 1  Thess. 
2;  Rev.  13).  Notwithstanding  their  apparent  strength,  the 
powers  will  be  overwhelmed.  The  details  of  this  destruction 
and  its  method  are  variously  described  in  the  Apocalyptic  Litera¬ 
ture  and  in  the  Targums.  The  Messianic  Kingdom  will 
then  have  its  seat  in  the  Holy  Land,  with  Jerusalem  as  its  capi¬ 
tal;  the  city  will  be  cleansed  of  the  heathen  (Ps.  Sol.  17:25,  33), 
and  the  Jews  who  are  scattered  throughout  the  world  will 
return  to  Palestine.  In  the  Psalter  of  Solomon  they  are  gathered 
by  the  Messiah. 

Then,  with  a  reunited  people,  will  God’s  Kingdom  be  es¬ 
tablished.  The  Messiah  King  will  be  at  the  head  of  the 
Kingdom,  but  God  Himself  will  be  the  ruler  of  the  Kingdom. 
To  quote  Schurer  again:  “With  the  setting  up  of  this  king¬ 
dom,  the  idea  of  God’s  kingship  over  Israel  becomes  full  truth 
and  reality.”  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Messianic  Kingdom 
is  called  “The  Kingdom  of  God”  or  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 
This  phrase,  it  is  true,  cannot  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  it  abounds  in  the  New  Testament,  and  represents  the 
fundamental  and  omnipresent  idea  of  the  Old — the  sovereignty 
of  God. 

In  the  thought  of  some,  the  heathen,  impressed  by  the  pros¬ 
perity  and  peace  of  Israel,  will  come  of  their  own  accord,  ac¬ 
knowledge  Jehovah,  and  walk  after  His  laws  (Sibyll.  ill,  698, 
726).  With  others,  the  power  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be  the 
compelling  force.  But,  whatever  the  method,  the  Messianic 
period  was  conceived  of  as  a  period  of  surpassing  blessings. 
Joy,  peace,  health,  and  prosperity  would  be  the  supreme  char¬ 
acteristics.  All  unrighteousness  will  be  cast  out,  the  Temple 
and  the  Law  will  assume  unwonted  splendor.  Even  the  dead 
of  Israel  will  rise  to  share  in  this  enjoyment. 

The  most  common  title  of  the  coming  King  was  “the  Anoint¬ 
ed,”  “the  Messiah.”  The  expression  “Son  of  Man”  is  applied  to 
him  only  in  the  Book  of  Enoch.  As  the  chosen  of  God,  he  is 


58 


Jesus’  Idea 


sometimes  called  the  “Elect,”  and  “the  Son  of  God.”  By  all, 
he  was  thought  of  as  a  descendant  of  David  (Isa.  ii:i,  io; 
Jer.  23:5,  30:9,  33:15,  17:22),  hence  a  universal  title  accorded 
to  him  was  “Son  of  David”  (Ps.  Sol.  17:5,  23;  the  New 
Testament)  ;  and  as  a  descendant  of  David,  he  was  to  be 
born  in  David’s  city — Bethlehem  (Micah  5:1;  St.  Mt.  2:5; 
St.  Jno.  7:41-42).  Two  views  were  entertained  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  personality.  In  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  pre-existence  of 
the  Messiah  is  asserted,  and  the  supernatural  element  i9 
generally  conspicuous.  This  is,  however,  the  exceptional  view. 
The  common  belief  was  in  a  human  Messiah  (especially  in  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon),  but  nevertheless  a  Messiah  of  a  high  order 
and  one  greatly  endowed  with  supernatural  gifts  and  graces  of 
God.  There  is  nothing,  however,  in  the  current  belief  of  the 
age  which  approaches  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  the  Son 
of  God  by  nature. 

While  many  thought  of  the  Messiah’s  Kingdom  as  ever¬ 
lasting  (Sibyll.  hi,  766;  Ps.  Sol.  17:4  etc.),  basing  their 
belief  upon  Old  Testament  passages,  some  regarded  the  King¬ 
dom  as  of  temporary  duration.  In  the  course  of  time,  it  would 
give  way  to  a  Kingdom  of  greater  happiness  in  eternity.  The 
world  was  also  to  be  made  new  (Isa.  65:17,  cf.  St.  Mt.  19:28, 
etc.).  Some  fancied  that  this  renovation  of  the  world  would 
characterize  the  beginning  of  the  Messiah’s  Kingdom;  others, 
that  it  would  come  at  its  conclusion.  A  resurrection  of  the 
dead  was  also  looked  for.  Those  now  dead  were  thought  of 
as  separated  in  an  intermediate  state,  and  enjoying  there  a 
preliminary  happiness  or  undergoing  torment.  Some  held 
that  only  the  righteous  rose  to  the  joy  of  the  Messianic  reign; 
others  held  that  there  was  a  general  resurrection  to  judgment. 
The  former  was  the  earlier  belief,  and  it  made  the  resurrection 
synonymous  with  the  commencement  of  the  Messianic  age.  An¬ 
other  view  postponed  the  resurrection  until  the  close  of  that 
age.  Men  would  be  judged  according  to  their  deeds,  hence 
heavenly  books  are  kept  and  these  will  determine  the  sentence 
(Enoch  48:7-8;  Book  of  Jubilees).  The  ungodly  are  cast 
into  Gehenna,  and  are  punished  everlastingly.  Yet  with  some 
there  is  the  idea  of  a  temporary  punishment — a  purgatory. 
The  Righteous  are  taken  to  Paradise. 

Amidst  this  variation  in  detail,  it  is  easy  to  detect  the  central 


The  Night  of  Legalism 


59 


and  salient  features.  The  coming  King  was  to  restore  the 
national  independence  of  Israel,  was  to  subdue  the  nations  of 
the  earth  and  enthrone  the  Scribal  Law.  Into  this  world  of 
truth  and  error,  of  fact  and  fiction,  of  Jewish  Apocalyptic  and 
Legalism,  was  Jesus  of  Nazareth  born. 


CHAPTER  V 


JESUS'  IDEA  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

That  the  era  of  the  “Night  of  Legalism”  marked  a  sad 
falling  away  from  the  Old  Testament  conceptions  generally, 
and  especially  from  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
is  abundantly  evident.  Many  events,  indeed,  had  served  to  ac¬ 
centuate  the  temporal  and  material  aspects  of  the  Kingdom. 
The  idea  fostered  during  this  period,  in  fact,  was  that  of  a 
worldly  and  political  kingdom,  composed  of  God’s  Chosen 
People,  who  were  related  to  the  Gentile  world  only  through 
triumph  and  conquest.  Thus  the  Kingdom  was  conceived 
of  as  primarily  national  in  extent.  The  popular  idea  in  our 
Lord’s  day,  indeed,  was  of  a  materialistic,  a  political  and  a 
worldly  Kingdom,  coterminous  and  coextensive  with  the  Jews. 
And  to  membership  in  this  Kingdom,  every  Jew,  by  virtue  of  his 
descent  from  Abraham,  had  a  just  and  inherent  claim.  The 
idea  of  the  coming  King  was  equally  materialistic,  worldly  and 
political.  Thus  the  entire  Jewish  mind  was  occupied  with  a 
dream  of  vast  exaltation  and  splendor  for  the  nation;  the 
King  must  of  necessity  be  similarly  great  and  splendid.1 

This  conception  reigned  generally  triumphant.  It  was  pleas- 

1  Dr.  Sanday  thus  summarizes  the  popular  view :  “The  contem¬ 
poraries  of  Jesus,  when  they  spoke  of  the  ‘Kingdom  of  God,’  thought 
chiefly  of  an  empire  contrasted  with  the  great  world  empires,  more 
particularly  the  Roman,  which  galled  them  at  the  moment.  And  the 
two  features  which  caught  their  imagination  most  were  the  throwing 
off  of  the  hated  yoke,  and  the  transference  of  supremacy  from  the 
heathen  to  Israel.  This  was  to  be  brought  about  by  a  catastrophe 
which  was  to  close  the  existing  order  of  things,  and  which,  there¬ 
fore,  took  a  shape  that  was  eschatological.”  This  conception  savored 
far  more  of  the  present  world  than  of  the  heavenly.  Events,  how¬ 
ever — the  Captivity,  and  the  disasters  subsequent — had  stamped  this 
idea  of  the  King  and  the  Kingdom  indelibly  upon  the  hearts  of 
the  people.  In  consequence,  it  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  conception 
of  later  Jewish  Literature,  and  of  the  Jews  in  the  New  Testament. 

60 


Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 


6 1 


ing,  captivating,  in  accordance  with  the  aspirations  and  am¬ 
bitions  of  fallen  human  nature,  appealed  to  wounded  pride  and 
vanity,  and  promised  vengeance  upon  the  hated  foes  of  the  Jews, 
who  had  so  often  in  the  past,  and  who  were  even  then  humiliat¬ 
ing  and  oppressing  them.  While  the  prophetic  view,  with  its 
more  spiritual  and  universal  aspect,  and  its  idea  of  a  Suffering 
King  or  People,  would  be  unpleasant  in  the  extreme  to  a  nation 
enamoured  of  worldly  ideals.  In  fact,  the  prophetic  conception 
was  for  the  most  part  forgotten  and  obsolete;  yet  it  was  kept 
alive  by  a  comparatively  few  humble  and  obscure  persons,  whose 
vision  of  things  unseen  and  eternal  was  not  entirely  lost  in  the 
vision  of  things  seen  and  temporal.  Such  were  probably  the 
aged  Simeon  and  Anna  of  our  Lord’s  time.1 

It  was  to  such  a  people,  in  such  a  condition,  and  nourished 
by  such  an  ideal  and  hope,  that  after  the  silence  of  centuries, 
John  the  Baptist  appeared,  proclaiming  with  startling  effec¬ 
tiveness  that  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  was  at  hand,  and  bid¬ 
ding  the  nation,  Repent!  We  may  imagine  readily  the  sensa¬ 
tion  created,  the  hope  enkindled,  and  the  inquiry  awakened. 
Day  at  length  seemed  about  to  dawn.  The  air  itself  was 
instinct  with  expectancy.  And  what  was  the  result?  The 
startling  proclamation,  the  sudden  appearance,  and  the  strange 
figure  shook  the  nation  to  its  very  depths.  We  are  not  sur¬ 
prised  to  learn  that,  “Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and 

1  The  hope  of  this  element  in  Israel  may  be  expressed  in  the  words 
“That  we  being  delivered  from  the  hand  of  our  enemies  might 
serve  him  without  fear,  in  holiness  and  righteousness  before  him  all 
the  days  of  our  life”  (St.  Luke  1:74).  That  there  were  many  pious 
households  and  humble  hearts  in  which  the  higher  and  nobler  hopes 
of  Israel  were  silently  cherished  is  most  likely,  but  they  were,  as 
a  rule,  far  removed  from  the  sphere  of  influence  and  publicity. 
Then,  as  now,  the  truest  and  the  simplest  religion  is  away  from 
the  centers  of  ecclesiasticism  and  the  turmoil  of  the  world.  The 
hotbeds  of  life,  indeed,  secular  and  religious,  have  never  produced 
the  choicest  flowers  of  manhood  or  of  character.  Simplicity  of 
life  alone  begets  intensity  of  faith  and  nobility  of  conduct.  Such 
a  household,  perhaps,  was  the  home  of  Joseph  of  Nazareth.  Speak¬ 
ing  generally,  however,  the  prophetic  conception  had  vanished  from 
the  hearts  and  the  lives  of  men.  It  was,  apparently,  a  thing  of 
the  past,  and  had  been  entirely  superseded  by  the  popular  view  of 
a  material  and  political  kingdom.  This  the  Jewish  people  were  ever 
more  and  more  eagerly  expecting,  especially  as  they  increasingly 
felt  the  iron  heel  of  Imperial  Rome. 


6  2 


J esus'  Idea 


all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan”  (St.  Mt. 
3:5).  The  nation  was  anxious,  indeed,  to  learn  more  from 
the  wild  prophet  of  the  desert.  But  what  did  they  hear? 
Did  John  voice  the  popular  ideal  of  the  Kingdom?  Was  his 
vision  that  of  the  populace?  Or  did  he  rediscover  the  long 
forgotten  and  unpleasant  prophetic  idea?  It  suffices  to  say 
that  John  was  a  prophet  in  every  fiber  of  his  being.  In  him 
we  have  the  “Elijah,”  the  messenger  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  Kingdom.  Not  Elijah  risen  from  the  dead,  but  a  prophet, 
as  our  Lord  declared  (St.  Mt.  11:9,  10)  of  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elijah,  to  whom  Malachi  had  referred  centuries  be¬ 
fore.  It  has  been  remarked,  and  it  is  true,  that  in  idea  and 
development  the  New  Testament  begins  at  the  point  at  which 
the  Old  Testament  closed.  Matthew  is  the  logical  successor  of 
Malachi.  John  the  Baptist  is  the  complement  of  Malachi. 
The  intervening  centuries  have  contributed  nothing  apparently, 
and  we  resume  our  thread  where  we  left  it,  without  losing 
aught. 

With  John,  indeed,  the  prophetic  conception  grew  once 
more  into  power.  The  popular  conception  of  the  Kingdom  was 
distinctly  challenged.  John  emphasized  the  moral  and  spiritual 
aspect,  and  hinted  at  the  universal  character  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  He  was  in  consequence  at  war  with  his  time.  The 
strong,  bold  and  uncompromising  nature  of  the  man,  however, 
compelled  him  to  strike  blows  without  fear  and  without  hesita¬ 
tion,  which  shattered  completely  the  extreme  complacency  of 
his  age.  Yet  John  was  emphatically  the  child  of  his  time: 
“for  a  man  belongs  to  his  age  and  race  even  when  he  reacts 
against  his  age  and  race.”  Especially  with  the  Baptist  do 
we  find  the  prophetic  doctrine  of  “the  remnant”  more  clearly 
taught.  In  the  face  of  the  popular  Jewish  fallacy  that  mere 
Abrahamic  descent  entitled  to  membership  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  John  demanded  of  the  Jews  themselves,  repentance,  or 
a  change  of  heart  and  mind,  and  the  fruit  of  repentance  in  an 
altered  life.  He  declared  that  the  nation  would  be  sifted,  and 
that  the  Kingdom  would  belong  only  to  the  purified  remnant, 
“the  wheat”  from  which  “the  chaff”  had  been  winnowed? 
and  further  that  the  Kingdom  would  not  lack  for  members, 
for  God  could  raise  up  children  to  Abraham  from  the  very 
stones  which  the  Jews  might  be  inclined  to  tread  under  foot. 


Jesus }  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 


63 


The  prophet’s  estimate  of  the  religious  leaders  of  his  day 
may  be  found  in  his  characterization  of  the  Pharisees  and  the 
Sadducees  as  the  “offspring  of  vipers,”  or  “children  of  the 
devil”;  for  such  is  really  the  significance  of  the  phrase,  the  viper 
being  a  common  Jewish  symbol  for  Satan.  After  a  study 
of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  we  can  appreciate  the  in¬ 
tensity  of  the  prophet’s  burning  words:  “O  generation  of 
vipers,  who  has  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come? 
Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  meet  for  repentance”  (St.  Mt. 
3:7-8).  With  John,  indeed,  the  coming  Kingdom  was  to  be 
primarily  ethical  and  moral  in  character ;  hence  the  nation  must 
repent.  There  was  to  be  a  baptism  of  the  spirit  and  of  fire. 
When  the  multitude,  for  instance,  aroused  and  expectant,  in¬ 
quired,  “What  then  must  we  do?”  the  answer  came:  “He 
that  hath  two  coats,  let  him  impart  to  him  that  hath  none; 
and  he  that  hath  meat,  let  him  do  likewise”  (St.  Lu.  3:11). 
The  publicans  were  exhorted  to  “exact  no  more  than  that 
which  is  appointed  you;”  and  the  soldiers  were  commanded 
to  “Do  violence  to  no  man,  neither  accuse  any  falsely;  and 
be  content  with  your  wages”  (St.  Lu.  3:13-14). 

Thus  John’s  view  must  have  been  doubly  distasteful  to  the 
Jews,  indicating,  as  it  did,  the  inward  and  moral  character 
of  the  Kingdom,  and  at  the  same  time  declaring  that  not  all 
of  the  Jews  would  share  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  only  those 
who  were  fit,  while  all  vacancies  would  be  filled  by  others.  The 
great  work  of  John,  however,  was  not  to  disclose  the  nature 
of  the  Kingdom,  but  to  act  as  the  herald  of  the  Kingdom  and 
its  King.  This  he  did  with  eminent  success,  stirring  the  peo¬ 
ple  to  great  activity,  and  awakening  the  conscience  of  the  nation, 
while  compelling  the  attention  of  his  countrymen  to  the  prophetic 
view  of  the  Kingdom.  His  life  and  his  speech  were  strenuous 
and  hard :  they  could,  however,  have  been  nothing  else  in  view 
of  his  time  and  place.  The  characterization  of  Monsieur 
Renan  is  most  apt:  “This  giant  in  primitive  Christianity,  this 
eater  of  locusts  and  wild  honey,  this  rugged  redresser  of  wrongs, 
was  the  absinthe  which  prepared  the  lip  for  the  sweetness  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.” 

Having  now  traced  the  development  of  the  Idea  of  the 
Kingdom  or  Rule  of  God,  we  come  to  our  third  subject  for 
investigation:  “The  Significance  attached  to  the  expression — 


6  4 


Jesus’  Idea 


‘The  Kingdom  of  God’  or  ‘The  Kingdom  of  Heaven’  when 
used  by  Jesus.”  The  theme  of  Jesus,  as  we  have  found,  was 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  Taking  up  the  cry  of  John  the  Baptist — 
‘‘The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand”!  Jesus  began  His  min¬ 
istry  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  (St.  Mk.  i : 1 5 ) ; 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  was  the  entire  burden  of  His  teach¬ 
ing,  and  with  further  instruction  in  it,  He  closed  His  earthly 
intercourse  with  His  Apostles.  What  then  was  Jesus’  Idea 
of  the  Kingdom?  What  did  He  mean  when  He  used  this  cur¬ 
rent  and  popular  expression  of  His  time? 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  could  not  have  remained  unaffected  by 
the  burning  question  of  His  day.  His  was  a  time,  indeed,  when 
all  thoughtful  Jews  must  commit  themselves  to  some  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Kingdom.  John  had  raised  the  question  anew. 
That  Jesus  was  profoundly  interested  in  the  subject,  we  gather 
from  the  words  of  St.  Matthew:  “Then  cometh  Jesus  from 
Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  him”  (3:13). 
The  voice  of  John  had  sounded  to  the  remotest  parts  of  Galilee; 
Jesus  heard,  and  in  thorough  sympathy  with  John,  came  to  his 
Baptism.  The  question  which  is  a  fruitful  one  with  many  ex¬ 
positors  and  theologians,  as  to  why  Jesus,  Himself  sinless,  re¬ 
ceived  the  baptism  of  John  which  was  unto  repentance  for 
sins,  is  really  a  tremendously  insignificant  one.  For  Jesus  not 
to  have  submitted  to  the  baptism  of  John,  would  have  been 
inexplicable  in  view  of  His  modest  Personality,  His  sympathy 
and  His  age.  The  Kingdom  must  have  His  allegiance,  no  less 
than  that  of  His  countrymen.  Bred,  however,  as  He  was,  in  the 
midst  of  Legalism  and  the  Apocalyptic,  what  would  be  His  idea 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God?  Would  He  ally  Himself  with  the 
popular  conception?  Or  would  He  espouse  the  prophetic  con¬ 
ception  ? 

A  great  scholar  of  Germany,  Bernhard  Weiss,  has  main¬ 
tained  that  Jesus  was  at  different  times  imbued  with  both 
ideas.  He  contends  that  Jesus  in  the  earlier  years  of  His 
ministry,  hoped  and  labored  rather  for  the  realization  of  the 
popular  ideal,  in  which  the  nation  as  a  whole  should  be  con¬ 
cerned,  and  that  only  later  in  His  ministry,  and  because  of 
the  insuperable  difficulties  which  militated  against  the  success 
of  His  early  ideal,  did  He  abandon  it,  and  become  an  advocate 
of  the  inward  and  spiritual  Kingdom  in  the  hearts  of  men. 


Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 


65 


He  further  holds  that  this  compulsory  change  constituted  the 
greatest  disappointment  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  While  there  is  an 
undoubted  development  both  in  Jesus’  view  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  in  His  teaching  in  regard  to  it,  the  development  is  legitimate 
and  evolutionary  and  does  not  partake  of  the  vacillating  and  un¬ 
stable  character  suggested  by  Weiss.  While  this  question  will 
not  be  discussed  fully  here,  because  our  view  becomes  apparent 
in  the  pages  which  follow,  it  may  be  well  to  say  that  the  theory 
of  Weiss  seems  but  the  spiritual  blindness  of  a  man  intellectually 
great — an  instance  by  no  means  infrequent  in  the  scholarly 
world,  where  great  intellectual  ability  is  never  the  guarantee 
of  spiritual  vision.  What  then  was  Jesus’  view?  Although  we 
cannot  enter  fully  upon  a  discussion  of  Jesus’  view  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  at  this  point,  inasmuch  as  His  view  will  be 
considered  in  detail  in  the  succeeding  pages,  it  will  now  suffice 
to  say  that  Jesus  took  the  highest  prophetic  view,  and  lifted 
it  to  an  ever  higher  plane  of  thought  as  to  the  Kingdom’s  uni¬ 
versality  and  spirituality.  Hence  His  view  was  immeasurably 
removed  from  the  popular  ideal.  A  few  reflections  will  con¬ 
vince  of  this  before  we  proceed  to  a  detailed  study  of  the 
Kingdom  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

The  Temptation  of  Jesus  which,  occurring  at  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry,  and  in  fact  constituting  His  inauguration, 
is  the  key  to  His  after  life  and  work,  offers  dramatic  testimony 
to  the  distinctive  character  of  Jesus’  conception  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  is  worthy  of  thorough  and  intelligent  study.  Let 
us  consider  it  somewhat  in  detail.1 

At  His  Baptism,  it  had  been  revealed  to  Jesus  apparently 
that  He  was  none  other  than  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God. 
This  knowledge,  coming  to  the  obscure,  unknown,  and  humble 

1  St.  Mark  1:12,  13,  St.  Matthew  4:1-11,  and  St.  Luke  4:1-13,  re¬ 
count  the  Temptation,  and  place  it  in  the  forefront  of  the  public 
Ministry.  The  account  of  St.  Mark  is  cursory,  while  that  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  is  more  detailed.  The  latter  agree  substan¬ 
tially  in  the  incidents  recorded,  except  that  the  order  of  the  second 
and  third  temptations  is  reversed.  St.  Matthew  places  the  scene 
on  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  second,  and  the  vision  on  the  moun¬ 
tain  top  third,  while  St.  Luke  reverses  this  order,  making  the  temp¬ 
tation  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  third  and  last.  The  order 
given  by  St.  Matthew  is  climacteric  and  far  more  dramatic  than  that 
of  St.  Luke;  it  is  also  more  in  accord  with  the  parabolic  genius 
of  Jesus. 


66 


Jesus’  Idea 


carpenter  of  Galilee,  must  have  caused  an  intellectual  and 
spiritual  unrest  into  the  intensity  of  which  it  is  impossible 
for  man  to  enter.  The  turmoil  of  the  soul,  no  less  than  the 
presence  of  the  Spirit,  impelled  Him  to  the  wilderness  of  Judea, 
where  the  severity  of  nature’s  aspect  well  accorded  with  the 
severity  and  the  isolation  of  His  thought  and  spirit.  Many  ques¬ 
tions  had  been  raised,  and  they  must  be  answered.  What  was 
the  Messiah  to  do?  What  kind  of  Messiah  was  He  to  be? 
The  powerless  Galilean  had  just  been  clothed  with  supernatural 
power.  (In  fact,  the  fundamental  presupposition  of  the  Temp¬ 
tation  is  Jesus’  possession  of  miraculous  power.)  But  what 
was  He  to  do  with  this  power?  How  was  it  to  be  used? 
What  did  it  all  mean?  These  and  similar  questions  must  be 
met :  hence,  the  wilderness.  And  hence,  also — Satan !  Death,  it 
is  said,  loves  a  shining  mark,  and  so  does  Satan.  The  very 
nearness  of  a  man  to  Heaven  makes  him  correspondingly  near 
to  Hell.  The  nobler  the  life,  the  greater  the  fall,  the  more 
terrible  the  effect,  and  the  more  strenuous  the  attack  of  Satan. 
The  Devil  is,  indeed,  an  able  General,  and  quick  to  note  an 
advantage.  So  Satan  now  reasons:  If  the  King  of  God’s 
Kingdom  can  be  defeated,  the  hosts  of  God  will  be  demoralized. 
As  yet,  He  is  untried,  untested.  The  wilderness  is  the  fitting 
field.  Now  weak  in  body,  and  distracted  in  mind,  as  yet 
unsettled  and  undetermined,  the  opportune  moment  is  at  hand. 
The  very  logic  of  events  demands  Satan,  and  he  comes. 

Half  sneeringly  and  tauntingly,  he  says:  “If  thou  be  the  Son 
of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made  bread.”  The 
reasoning  is,  Surely  God  would  not  have  His  Messiah  suffer 
from  hunger,  especially  when  He  is  clothed  with  supernatural 
power,  and  has  but  to  speak  the  word.  It  was  the  eternal,  the 
universal,  and  the  democratic  question  of  providing  “bread  and 
butter.”  1  The  stern  necessities  of  life  afford  Satan  his  never- 
neglected  opportunity.  So  it  was  then,  so  it  is  now.  The  temp¬ 
tation,  indeed,  was  most  adroit;  plausible,  reasonable  and  legiti¬ 
mate  the  suggestion  seemed.  If  it  was  to  selfishness,  it  was  ap¬ 
parently  to  reasonable  selfishness.  Jesus,  however,  perceives  the 

1  Satan,  indeed,  finds  entrance  into  the  hearts  of  more  men 
through  their  daily  bread,  probably,  than  in  any  other  way.  Well 
may  Jesus  teach  us  to  pray — Father ,  give  us  this  day  our  daily 
bread.” 


Jesus ’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom  67 

true  significance  of  the  temptation,  despite  its  subtle  disguise. 
The  question  was  this:  Would  He,  endowed  with  supernatural 
power,  use  it  for  His  own  ends  and  needs,  as,  for  instance,  by 
turning  stones  into  bread  to  satisfy  His  hunger?  Or  would  He 
use  it  only  in  behalf  of  others?  Egoism  and  altruism  were  at 
war.  The  import  lay  even  deeper  than  this,  however.  In 
reality,  a  contest  was  waging  between  the  human  and  the 
semi-human.  Was  His  life  to  be  natural  and  human,  or  un¬ 
natural  and  thaumaturgic?  Was  He  to  appear  to  lead  a 
human  life,  yet  in  the  presence  of  need  or  danger  fly  for 
refuge  to  that  realm  of  the  superhuman  and  the  supernatural 
into  which  He  had  recently  been  inducted?  Had  Jesus  yielded, 
H  is  life  would  have  at  once  passed  from  the  sphere  of  the 
tragic  and  the  sublime,  into  that  of  the  comic  and  the  ridiculous. 
Yet  Satan’s  mistake  was  the  mistake  of  the  majority  of  men, 
who  place  the  things  of  the  physical  life  before  the  things 
of  the  spiritual  life.  In  this  customary  way  he  sought  to 
seduce.  Jesus’  answer,  however,  was  a  crushing  protest  against 
this  satanic  fallacy:  “It  is  written,  Man  shall  not  live  by 
bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God”  (See  Deut.  8:3). 

Altruism  had  won  the  victory,  but  it  was  in  turn  to  be¬ 
come  the  source  and  the  center  of  the  next  Temptation.  Satan, 
taking  Jesus  to  the  Holy  City,  and  placing  Him  upon  some 
lofty  height  of  the  Temple,  whispers:  “If  thou  be  the  Son  of 
God,  cast  thyself  down:  for  it  is  written,  He  shall  give  His 
angels  charge  concerning  thee:  And  in  their  hands,  they  shall 
bear  thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a 
stone.”  Again  the  taunt,  “If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,”  and 
another  apparently  reasonable  suggestion.  We  have  seen  that 
it  was  a  current  belief  among  the  Jews,  that  when  the  Mes¬ 
siah  came,  he  was  to  come  suddenly  from  obscurity,  and  to  attest 
his  vocation  by  miracles.  This  temptation,  then,  was  a  request 
for  a  concession  to  the  Messianic  expectation  of  the  day.  Jesus 
knew  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  But  the  nation  did  not  know 
Him  as  such.  Credentials  were  seemingly  essential.  What 
more  convincing  evidence  could  there  be  than  that  proposed  by 
Satan?  To  leap  from  the  loftiest  pinnacle  of  the  nation’s 
Temple,  in  the  very  center  of  the  nation’s  life,  and,  through  His 
relationship  to  God,  alight  unscathed — who  could  deny  or  dis- 


68 


Jesus’  Idea 


pute  such  evidence?  The  nation  would  be  dazzled,  the  in¬ 
vincibility  of  His  cause  proved,  the  allegiance  of  the  people  com¬ 
pelled,  success  ensured — and  all,  through  a  slight  concession 
to  the  spectacular.  And  all  this,  again,  without  danger  to 
Himself,  inasmuch  as  God’s  “care  for  the  pious  in  general”  as 
set  forth  in  Psalm  91:11-12  would  be  exercised  toward  Him, 
God’s  Son,  in  pre-eminent  measure.  Such  was  Satan’s  appeal. 

But  Jesus  again  sees  the  import  of  the  suggestion,  and 
replies,  “On  the  other  hand,  It  is  written,  Thou  shalt  not 
tempt  the  Lord  thy  God”  (Deut.  6:16).  That  is — no  ques¬ 
tion  of  God’s  protecting  care  was  to  be  raised  unnecessarily ; 
God  was  not  to  be  tried  or  tested  without  due  cause;  danger 
was  not  to  be  sought  without  adequate  reason.  That  super¬ 
natural  power  which  Jesus  had  declined  to  use  for  self,  and  had 
decided  to  use  only  for  others,  He  now  declines  to  use  even  for 
the  benefit  of  others  in  an  ill-advised,  illegitimate  and  spectacular 
way.  Had  He  yielded,  verily  the  flood  gates  of  the  extraor¬ 
dinary  and  the  marvelous  would  have  been  opened  and 
Jesus,  once  entering  upon  such  a  course,  would  not  have 
known  where  to  stop.  The  Kingdom  of  God  would  have  been 
won,  if  won  at  all,  by  the  spectacular.  Reminiscent  of  this 
temptation  are  those  incidents  in  which  Our  Lord  was  asked 
subsequently  for  a  sign,  as  for  instance  St.  Mk.  8:11-13  cf. 
31-38.  Jesus,  however,  would  not  be  a  superlative  thaumatur- 
gist  or  Wonder-Worker.  He  preferred  the  pathway  of  the  un¬ 
ostentatious.  It  is  by  no  means  pleasing  to  reflect  that  much 
of  Christianity’s  machinery  to-day  in  both  the  Protestant  and 
Catholic  worlds,  is  of  the  character  rejected  by  the  Master  in 
the  Second  Temptation. 

The  last  Temptation  was  Satan’s  trump-card,  and  it  was 
played  with  masterful  skill.  Beaten  at  two  points,  Satan 
was  now  determined  to  overwhelm  Jesus.  “Again  the  devifr 
taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain,  and  sheweth 
him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  the  glory  of  them; 
And  saith  unto  him,  All  these  things  will  I  give  thee,  if  thou 
wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me.”  The  Jewish  idea  of  the  day, 
shared  subsequently  by  many  Christians,  was  “that  the  present 
age  and  world  lay  under  the  control  (2  Cor.  4:4;  Eph.  6:12) 
of  Satan  as  king  of  the  present  time  or  king  of  the  present 
things.”  What  Satan  now  possessed,  Jesus  desired  for  God — 


Jesus *  Idea  of  the  Kingdom  69 

the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  all  their  resources.  Jesus, 
indeed,  dreamed  a  dream  of  Universal  empire.  Satan  had  de¬ 
tected  this,  and  made  it  a  point  of  attack.  That  empire  might 
he  His,  that  dream  fulfilled,  every  blessing  and  joy  to  the 
world  of  which  He  had  conceived,  become  actual,  if  He  would 
only  do  homage  to  Satan.  Jesus  felt,  too,  as  every  man  of 
ability  feels,  the  possession  of  His  power.  He  was  supremely 
conscious  of  His  unrivaled  ability  to  rule.  And  now  the  op¬ 
portunity  had  come  to  gain  His  end,  and  to  fulfil  His  destiny. 
The  Temptation,  indeed,  must  have  been  terrible.  It  meant, 
apparently,  the  Kingdom  of  God  without  the  Cross;  the  Crown 
without  the  Thorns.  Verily — 

“The  devil  hath  power 
To  assume  a  pleasing  shape.” 

But  here  again  the  insight  of  Jesus  is  proof  against  the  subtle 
suggestions  of  the  insinuating  Tempter.  Jesus  sees  their  im¬ 
port.  The  question  was  this,  Would  He,  seeing  the  King¬ 
doms  of  the  earth,  and  how  they  might  be  His,  if  He  would 
listen  to  the  dulcet  voice  of  Satan,  use  His  power  in  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  worldly  principles  and  methods  ?  And  what  is  this  but 
the  popular  and  political  conception  of  the  Kingdom  and  its 
King,  appearing  to  Jesus,  conscious  of  His  personality  and  His 
power?  Many  had  aspired  to  free  the  nation  from  its  foreign 
yoke,  and  to  gain  for  Israel  the  sovereignty  of  the  world. 
There  was  Judas,  the  Galilean,  who  angered  by  the  taking  of 
a  hateful  census  a  few  years  before,  the  prelude  to  Roman 
taxation,  had  raised  the  standard  of  revolt,  declaring  that 
Israel  should  have  no  King  but  God.  He  had  failed,  but 
his  party  still  remained.  Jesus  must  have  known  of  him  and 
of  them.  Where  Judas  had  failed,  however,  Jesus  could  suc¬ 
ceed,  because  of  His  possession  of  supernatural  power.  Thus 
Satan  uses  the  Apocalyptic  conception  of  the  Kingdom  in  con¬ 
nection  with  well-known  movements  of  Jesus’  day  to  appeal  to 
Our  Lord.  The  Devil,  in  fact,  always  speaks  the  language  of 
the  particular  age.  And  success  would  he  give  if  Jesus  would 
only  worship  him.  And  what  was  the  alternative?  The 
Kingdom  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men  of  which  Ezekiel  and 
Jeremiah  had  dreamed;  a  Kingdom  gained  through  no  selfish 
use  of  power,  through  the  adoption  of  no  worldly  principles  and 


70 


Jesus'  Idea 


methods,  but  by  the  quiet  proclamation  of  the  truth,  by  a  love 
for  men  entailing  keen  and  bitter  anguish,  and  perhaps  death 
at  their  hands.  A  Kingdom  gained  through  listening  to  the  still, 
small  voice  of  God,  rather  than  the  subtle  whisperings  of  the 
Tempter.  The  majestic  sovereign  of  splendor  and  might  of 
the  popular  view,  is  thus  offset  by  the  suffering  King  of  the 
prophetic  view.  The  triumph  to  be  gained  by  force  is  offset  by 
the  conquest  to  be  made  by  love.  A  like  alternative  had  been 
presented  to  the  first  Adam,  and  we  know  his  choice ;  it  is  now 
presented  to  the  Second  Adam:  What  will  be  His  choice? 

While  Satan  seemed  to  give  much,  in  reality  he  would  have 
given  nothing,  but  would  have  gained  everything.  For,  while 
Jesus  would  have  ruled  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  Satan 
would  have  ruled  Jesus,  and  incalculable  and  irretrievable  harm 
would  have  ensued  to  the  world.  Jesus  would,  forthwith,  have 
become  the  prince  of  those  to  whom  Mr.  Lecky,  in  speaking  of 
Marcus  Aurelius,  refers:  “Despotic  monarchs  sincerely  anxious 
to  improve  mankind  are  naturally  led  to  endeavor,  by  acts  of 
legislation,  to  force  society  into  the  paths  which  they  believe 
to  be  good,  and  such  men,  acting  under  such  motives,  have 
sometimes  been  the  scourges  of  mankind”  (Hist,  of  European 
Morals.  Vol.  I,  p.  265).  The  Kingdom  of  God,  however, 
as  we  have  seen,  demands  freedom  of  the  will  and  a  willing 
obedience,  not  force  and  compulsion.  This  Jesus  perceived,  and 
Satan  stood  unmasked.  Sharply  and  decisively  comes  the  an¬ 
swer  “Get  thee  hence,  Satan:  for  it  is  written,  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  hi?n  only  shalt  thou  serve” 
(Deut.  6:13  ff).  Jesus  would  not  be  a  temporal  prince,  but 
a  spiritual  King.  The  Devil’s  play  had  failed,  and  he  “leaveth 
him,  and,  behold,  angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him.”  1 

Thus  the  Temptation  is  the  struggle  in  the  mind  of 

1  St.  Luke  says  “he  departed  from  him  for  a  season ”  In  fact, 
Satan,  throughout  Jesus’  entire  career,  was  continually  and  per¬ 
sistently  pressing  upon  Him  the  ideas  and  aspirations  which  had 
assumed  such  tangible  shape  in  the  Temptation  of  the  Wilderness. 
St.  Peter  himself,  protesting  after  the  confession  at  Caesarea  Phil- 
lippi  against  the  self-announced  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  as 
unworthy  of  the  Messianic  King,  is  rebuked  by  Our  Lord  in  almost 
the  very  words  formerly  addressed  to  the  Devil — “Get  thee  behind 
me,  Satan:  for  thou  savorest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but 
the  things  that  be  of  men”  (St.  Mk.  8:33  cf.  34-37).  Again,  when, 


Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom  71 

Christ  between  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  conceptions  of 
the  Kingdom.  We  speak  of  the  Temptation:  let  us  bear  in 
mind  that  “temptation”  really  means  a  trial  or  a  testing; 
the  idea  of  sin  is  not  necessarily  involved.  In  the  Temptation 
of  Jesus,  the  trial  or  test  was  this — Would  Jesus  live  for  the 
outer  or  the  inner  life?  The  conflict  was  between  the  outer 
and  the  inner  worlds.  The  significance  of  the  Temptation, 
however,  is  the  same  whether  we  view  it  as  an  actual  external 
event,  or  as  an  inward  and  mental  struggle.  For  our  part,  the 
account  of  the  Temptation  is  not  history  or  external  fact 
at  all ;  it  is  rather  the  parabolic,  pictorial  illustration  of  an 
inward  and  historic  conflict — the  conflict  between  Jewish 
Apocalyptic  and  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.1 

Emerging  from  the  wilderness  after  the  titanic  struggle, 


according  to  St.  John  6:15,  “Jesus  therefore  perceived  that  they 
would  come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him  a  king,  he  departed 
again  into  a  mountain  himself  alone.”  This  is  but  the  recurrence 
of  the  suggestion  made  in  the  third  temptation,  pressing  with  such 
force  that  the  Master  seeks  solitude  for  prayer  and  meditation. 
Jesus  had  gained  a  signal  victory,  but  He  was  compelled  to  hold 
the  ground  gained  by  ceaseless  effort. 

1  That  Jesus,  as  the  Messiah,  should  pass  through  such  an  expe¬ 
rience  is  most  reasonable,  as  we  have  seen.  That  He  should  sum¬ 
marize  and  recount  to  His  disciples  in  vivid  and  pictorial  way  this 
experience  is  also  to  be  expected.  While  the  Temptation  of  Jesus 
is  rightly  regarded  as  prophetic,  and  typical  of  that  which  comes  to 
every  man,  it  must  never  be  forgotten,  as  it  is  so  generally  for¬ 
gotten,  that  it  was  of  peculiar  application  to  the  Founder  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  in  the  first  instance,  and,  after  Him,  to  the  future 
ambassadors  of  the  Kingdom — the  Apostles.  Jesus  Himself  must 
have  recounted  this  experience,  whether  an  outward  event  or  an 
inward  struggle.  And  what  could  have  been  the  motive?  Surely 
not  egotism  or  conceit !  Rather  was  the  motive  didactic.  The  recital 
of  the  Temptation  was  Jesus’  attempt  to  disillusion  His  disciples. 
It  was  a  mighty  protest  against  their  Messianic  ideas ;  His  endeavor 
to  show  them  the  path  which  they  must  follow  after  Him.  The 
idea  is  well  set  forth  in  the  words  subsequently  spoken:  “Whoso¬ 
ever  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up  his 
cross,  and  follow  me”  (St.  Mk.  8:34).  As  in  the  School  of  Jesus, 
so  in  the  Divinity  Schools  of  every  land,  the  Temptation  of  Jesus 
should  occupy  the  preeminent  place.  For  Satan’s  temptation  of 
Jesus  is  Satan’s  temptation  of  every  minister  of  Christ;  namely,  to 
use  his  power  and  office  simply  as  a  means  of  gaining  bread  and 
butter ;  or  to  seek  results  along  the  line  of  the  theatrical  and  the 
spectacular ;  or  in  the  general  adoption  of  worldly  measures  to 


72 


Jesus’  Idea 


and  again  appearing  to  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  is  publicly  pro¬ 
claimed  as  the  Messiah.  John  cries  on  two  distinct  occasions 
“Behold  the  Lamb  of  God!”  (St.  Jno.  1:29,  36).  This  is 
indeed  a  strange  utterance  from  the  Baptist.  Shortly  before,  he 
had  heralded  a  Messiah  of  iron-will  and  of  invincible  might, 
uprooting,  overturning,  destroying;  now  he  cries,  “Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  What 
did  John  mean?  The  Lamb  in  all  literature  “is  the  symbol 
of  innocence  and  gentleness,  as  opposed  to  cunning  and  ferocity.” 
Among  the  Jews  again  there  was  the  well-known  Paschal 
Lamb,  and  the  Lamb  of  the  daily  sacrifice.  The  figure  of  the 
Lamb  is  also  used  by  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  to  refer  to  the  Suffer¬ 
ing  Servant  of  Jehovah.  That  a  reference  to  the  Suffering 
Servant  was  intended  by  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  prophets 
is  our  opinion,  although  this  does  not  exclude  a  possible  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  lamb  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  or  the  Paschal  Lamb. 
And  what  phrase  could  more  admirably,  or  more  truly,  describe 
Jesus  after  the  decision  made  in  the  Temptation?  Not  the 
majestic  King  of  the  Apocalyptic  dreams  now,  but  the  Suffering 
Servant  of  Jehovah — the  patient  preacher  of  God’s  truth,  and 
sufferer  for  God’s  sake,  and  so  a  King.  Thus  we  have  for  the 
first  time,  the  conception  of  the  Davidic  King  and  the  Suffering 
Servant  of  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  united  and  applied  to  one 
person — the  Messiah.  It  remained,  in  fact,  for  Jesus  after 
centuries  to  harmonize  the  two  apparently  hopelessly  con¬ 
tradictory  conceptions;  the  Temptation  was  the  scene  and  the 
ground  of  that  reconciliation.  To  what  we  must  attribute 
the  marked  change  or  development  in  John’s  thought^of  the 
Messiah,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  It  may  have  been  due  to 
converse  with  Jesus  Himself;  or  it  may  be  referred  to  a  flash 
of  spiritual  insight  into  the  deeper  meaning  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  vouchsafed  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Yet  whatever  the 
source,  the  declaration  stands;  a  lofty  note  was  sounded,  and  it 
has  not  been  lowered  throughout  the  ages.  Jesus  was  the 
Lamb  of  God:  the  Temptation  had  crowned  Him  such. 

further  the  kingdom  of  Satan  instead  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The 
temptation,  indeed,  discloses  the  fundamental  principles  underlying 
the  ministerial  life;  it  depicts  the  true  ambassador  of  God.  Were 
this  done,  fewer,  indeed,  in  the  ministerial  world,  both  Protestant 
and  Catholic,  would  be  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  and  dulcet-toned 
sycophants  of  Hell,  who  cry  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace. 


Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 


73 


This  we  see  also,  if  we  note  what  may  be  appropriately 
called  The  Inaugural  Address  of  Christ.  It  was  delivered  in 
the  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  immediately  after  His  return  from 
the  Jordan.  Returning  “in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Gali¬ 
lee,”  Jesus  teaches  in  their  synagogues.  “And  he  came  to 
Nazareth,  where  he  had  been  brought  up:  and  as  his  cpstom 
was,  he  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  sabbath  day,  and  stood 
up  for  to  read.  And  there  was  delivered  unto  him  the  book 
of  the  prophet  Esaias.  And  when  he  had  opened  the  book,  he 
found  the  place  where  it  was  written,  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  upon  me,  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  the  poor;  he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  brokenhearted,  to 
preach  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to 
the  blind,  to  set  at  liberty,  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach 
the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.  And  he  closed  the  book  and 
he  gave  it  to  the  minister,  and  sat  down.  And  the  eyes  of 
all  them  that  were  in  the  synagogue  were  fastened  on  him. 
And  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  This  day  is  this  scripture 
fulfilled  in  your  ears ”  (St.  Lu.  4:16-21). 

Whether  St.  Luke  gives  this  address  in  its  historical  connec¬ 
tion  is  a  small  matter;  its  position  is  at  least  logical,  and  it 
indicates  Jesus’  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom.  (The 
quotation  is  the  well-known  Messianic  passage  from  Isaiah 
61:1-2.)  As  soon,  indeed,  as  we  hear  the  address  fall  from 
the  Master’s  lips,  we  know  what  His  choice  has  been,  and  in 
what  direction  His  work  lies.  He  will  be  King  through  Kind¬ 
ness:  His  Kingdom  be  the  grateful  hearts  of  men.  Indeed,  the 
choice  made,  Christ  never  wavered,  even  though  the  shadow 
of  Calvary  already  lay  upon  His  brow.  With  a  fidelity  amaz¬ 
ing,  and  a  grasp,  from  the  very  first,  of  the  basic  principles 
necessary  in  the  founding  and  maintenance  of  such  a  King¬ 
dom  as  He  had  elected,  that  is  most  astounding,  Jesus  set 
about  His  task. 

Other  testimony  to  the  distinctive  character  of  Jesus’  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Kingdom  also  confronts  us  at  the  beginning 
of  the  public  ministry.  Let  us  glance  hastily  at  two  factors 
in  it.  Jesus  was  well  aware  that  as  a  religious  teacher,  His 
attitude  toward  the  old  religion  would  be  questioned  from  the 
beginning.  Hence  we  find  Him  at  the  very  outset  stating 
His  relationship  to  the  old  religion  in  the  Sermon  on  the 


74 


Jesus’  Idea 


Mount.  “Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets:  I  am  come  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil”  (St.  Mt. 
5:17).  Jesus  here  admits  His  indebtedness  and  relationship  to 
the  Older  Religion,  and  defines  His  attitude  toward  it.  He  was 
not  a  destroyer  but  a  fulfiller :  His  mission  was  to  enlarge,  to 
develop,  to  fill  the  Old  Religion  full  of  a  new  meaning  and 
significance.  Not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  Old  Law  was  to  pass 
away  until  all  had  been  fulfilled  (St.  Mt.  5:14).  We  note 
here  a  declaration  of  both  dependence  and  independence.  While 
led  to  expect  some  indebtedness  to  the  former  law,  we  are  also 
led  to  expect  some  development,  at  once  individual  and  dis¬ 
tinctive.  This  truth  applies  equally  to  the  conception  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  If  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  to  be 
fulfilled,  we  would  expect  the  development  to  extend  to,  and 
to  include,  so  weighty  a  matter  as  the  Prophetic  conception 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

This  truth  is  again  clearly  set  forth,  and  as  explicitly,  in 
another  pregnant  but  somewhat  enigmatical  utterance  of  Our 
Lord  spoken  at  the  outset  of  His  career.  “No  man  also  seweth 
a  piece  of  new  cloth  on  an  old  garment:  else  the  new  piece 
that  filleth  it  up  taketh  away  from  the  old,  and  the  rent  is 
made  worse.  And  no  man  putteth  new  wine  into  old  bottles: 
else  the  new  wine  doth  burst  the  bottles,  and  the  wine  is  spilled, 
and  the  bottles  will  be  marred:  but  new  wine  must  be  put  into 
new  bottles”  (St.  Mk.  2 ’.21-22). 1 

The  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Pharisees  were 
fasting  in  accordance  with  established  precedent;  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  were  not  fasting.  Amazed,  those  fasting  come  to 
Jesus,  and  hold  Him  responsible,  asking,  “Why  do  the  disciples 
of  John,  and  of  the  Pharisees  fast,  but  thy  disciples  fast  not?” 
Jesus,  applying  to  Himself  the  figure  of  the  “Bridegroom” 
which  had  been  applied  to  Him  by  John  the  Baptist,  says: 
“Can  the  children  of  the  bridechamber  fast,  while  the  bride¬ 
groom  is  with  them?  As  long  as  they  have  the  bridegroom 
with  them,  they  cannot  fast.  But  the  days  will  come,  when 
the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from  them.  And  then 
shall  they  fast  in  those  days.”  The  meaning  of  this  is  obvious. 
A  wedding  is  an  occasion  of  festivity,  not  of  fasting,  the 
expression  of  mourning — “I,  as  the  Messiah,  the  Bridegroom, 

1  This  saying  is  also  given  in  St.  Mt.  9:14-17,  and  St.  Luke  5  133-3 & 


Jesus'  Idea  of  the  Kingdom  75 

) 

am  now  with  my  disciples,  ‘the  children  of  the  bride-chamber,’ 
my  ‘choicest  and  most  trusted  and  beloved  friends’ ;  the  wed¬ 
ding  is  on — why  should  they  fast?  Their  fasting  is  impossible 
now;  but  presently,  when  the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away, 
then  will  they  fast,  because  mourning  over  his  absence  is  natural, 
and  fasting,  the  expression  of  their  sorrow.” 

Thus  Jesus  lifted  the  idea  of  fasting  to  a  plane  of  dignity 
unknown  among  the  Jews.  He  removed  fasting  from  the  sphere 
of  rote  and  rule,  and  made  it  the  true  embodiment  of  the 
inner  feeling  of  the  heart;  not  a  mockery,  but  a  reality.  Even 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  Christian  Church  has  as  yet 
been  unable  to  understand  this  teaching.  Then  with  that  mag¬ 
nificent  intellectual  acumen  which  ever  characterized  Him, 
Jesus  rises  from  a  consideration  of  the  specific  to  the  general,  of 
the  concrete  to  the  abstract.  It  is  as  though  He  said — “You 
ask — why  my  disciples  do  not  fast?  and  you  expect  them  to 
fast  in  the  prescribed  fashion.  Don’t  make  a  sad  mistake! 
You  mustn’t  expect  to  take  the  new  cloth  of  my  teaching, 
and  put  it  as  a  patch  upon  the  old,  well-worn  garment  of 
your  religion,  for  it  would  only  tear  away  from  the  old,  and 
the  rent  between  the  two  teachings,  which  is  now  bad,  would 
become  worse. 

“Nor  again,  must  you  expect  to  pour  the  new  wine  of  the 
spirit  of  my  truth  and  teaching  into  the  old  decaying  wine¬ 
skins  of  your  religion,  such  as  fasting  by  rote — the  form  and 
ceremonial  of  Judaism;  for  the  energizing,  fermenting  power 
of  the  new  wine  of  my  truth,  would  only  burst  the  rotting 
wineskins  of  the  old,  and  both  the  new  wine,  my  truth,  and  the 
old  wineskins,  your  Judaism,  would  be  spoiled.  No,  ‘new 
wine  must  be  put  into  new  bottles ;’  my  truth  must  create  its 
own  ritual.”  Such  was  the  meaning  of  Jesus.  Failure  to  un¬ 
derstand  Him  caused  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  Judaizers  of 
the  early  Church ;  it  has  also  saddled  the  Christianity  of  our 
day  with  a  large  amount  of  ecclesiasticism,  sacramentarianism, 
and  formalism,  borrowed  from  Judaism  and  heathenism,  the 
outcome  of  the  Church’s  endeavor  to  express  the  new  truth  of 
Christianity  in  the  old  forms  and  ideas  of  Judaism  and  Pagan¬ 
ism.  However,  this  teaching  of  Jesus  leads  us  to  look  for 
something  novel  and  supplementary  in  His  doctrine.  And  here 
again  Jesus  fulfils  a  law  of  life.  Every  man  who  is  to  advance 


76  Jesus ’  Idea 

his  age,  must  be  in  sympathy  with  it,  and  yet  in  vision  beyond  it. 

Other  considerations  might  be  adduced,  but  these  suffice  to 
show  that  Jesus’  view  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  while  founded 
upon  the  prophetic  view,  was  yet  more  universal  in  extent  and 
spiritual  in  character  than  that  of  the  noblest  and  sublimest 
prophecy.  It  was  this  marked  and  distinctively  new  element 
which  justified  Jesus  in  His  proclamation  of  The  Kingdom 
of  God,  in  spite  of  all  incipient  and  preparatory  stages  in 
the  Kingdom’s  development.  Truly,  for  the  first  time,  do  we 
have  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  its  absolute,  undimmed,  and  un¬ 
tarnished  ideal  and  reality  in  the  teaching  and  in  the  Person 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  now  remains  but  to  add  that  to  this  idea  and  ideal 
Jesus  was  wholly  consecrated.  Heinrich  Heine  has  observed 
that,  “We  do  not  take  possession  of  our  ideas,  but  are  pos¬ 
sessed  by  them.  They  frighten  us  and  force  us  into  the  arena, 
where,  like  gladiators,  we  must  fight  for  them.”  This  was 
emphatically  true  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  although  the  opposite 
was  equally  true  of  Him.  While  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  did 
possess  Him  in  every  fiber  of  His  being,  He  possessed  a  mas¬ 
tery  over  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom,  which  only  a  pro¬ 
found  study  of  His  exposition  of  the  subject  can  enable  us  to 
appreciate  adequately.  Jesus,  indeed,  lived  on  the  heights. 
The  mind  of  the  peasant  Carpenter  of  Nazareth  had  soared 
to  the  highest  height  of  heaven,  and  there  had  seized  the  sub¬ 
limest  of  conceptions.  This  conception  was  His  life;  in  it  He 
lived,  and  moved,  and  had  His  being.  His  constant  endeavor 
was  to  translate  this  conception  into  terms  of  human  thought 
and  life.  This  conception  was  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Every¬ 
thing  suggested  it,  and  everywhere  was  it  seen;  even  in  the 
simplest  things  of  life.  Nature  seemed  to  teem  with  it,  and 
the  associations  of  an  apparently  monotonous  and  prosaic  daily 
routine  to  bespeak  it.  The  seed,  the  sower,  the  leaven,  the 
growing  mustard  tree,  the  fishermen  with  their  nets,  the  busy 
merchantmen,  the  gaiety  and  custom  of  the  marriage  feast, 
the  hiring  of  the  laborers,  the  children  dancing  in  the  streets, 
alike  suggested  to  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
In  every  phase  of  life  He  saw  the  Kingdom  mirrored  and  re¬ 
flected.  Whether  He  was  in  the  simplicity  of  the  humble 
home  at  Nazareth,  or  in  the  joyousness  and  freedom  of  the 


Jesus’  Idea  of  the  Kingdom 


77 


happy  days  spent  upon  the  hills  about  the  provincial  town,  or 
during  the  occasional  sojourns  amid  the  attractions  and  allure¬ 
ments  of  the  Holy  City  with  its  crowds  and  manifold  interests, 
the  thought  of  the  Kingdom  was  His  constant  companion, 
more  dear  than  aught  else;  so  dear,  in  fact,  that  nothing 
could  vie  with  it  successfully  or  dispute  its  supremacy.  Jesus, 
throughout  His  entire  life,  was  a  man  of  One  idea;  but  that 
Idea,  the  most  sublime,  and  the  most  comprehensive  that  has 
ever  dawned  upon  the  mind  of  man — an  Idea,  so  splendid, 
august,  and  far-reaching,  that  men  penetrate  into  its  vastness 
with  exceeding  difficulty,  and,  when  measurably  the  possessors 
of  it,  burst  into  an  unfeigned  confession  of  admiration  and 
reverence.  This  Idea  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  subject  of 
our  study;  a  more  worthy  and  more  fascinating  subject  could 
no  man  have. 

And  now  having  discussed  ( i )  The  Meaning  of  the  Phrase, 
“The  Kingdom  of  God”  or  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven”;  (2) 
The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Idea  embodied  in  the 
Phrases;  and  (3)  The  Significance  attached  to  the  Phrases  when 
used  by  Jesus,  let  us  proceed  to  study  the  latter  in  detail,  as 
we  shall  find  Jesus’  conception  revealed  in  His  teaching.  We 
shall  consider  this  especially  in  relation  to  the  prevailing  and 
popular  conception  of  the  Kingdom  held  in  Our  Lord’s  day, 
and  also  in  its  bearing  upon  certain  problems  and  needs  of 
our  own  age.  The  divisions  of  our  subject  will  be:  “The 
Subjects  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The  Kingdom’s  Method  of  De¬ 
velopment”;  “The  World’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The 
Value  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The 
Extent  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The  Time  of  the  Kingdom”;  “The 
Church  and  The  Kingdom”;  “The  Kingdom  and  The  Super¬ 
natural”;  and  “The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom.” 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

However  the  view  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  which  Jesus 
entertained  might  differ  from  the  popular  or  the  prophetic 
conception,  and  however  the  popular  conception  might  diverge 
from  the  prophetic  conception,  the  three  were  agreed  in  one 
essential  point  at  least — namely,  that  on  its  human  side  there 
must  be  a  visible  manifestation  or  embodiment  of  the  Kingdom. 
This  fact  is  the  more  noteworthy  in  view  of  the  idea  of 
Jesus.  While  the  Kingdom  with  Him  was  in  its  last  analysis, 
submission  and  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  at  the  same 
time  it  was  to  be  tangible,  visible,  real — not  a  figment  of 
the  imagination,  but  a  great  and  obvious  reality.  It  must  have 
members  or  subjects.  Logically,  there  must  be  an  outward 
expression  of  the  inward  spirit  in  the  individual  and  an  intimate 
association  of  those  akin  in  principle  and  idea.  Life,  in  fact, 
always  tends  to  embodiment  and  seeks  expression.  It  is  neces¬ 
sary,  therefore,  to  inquire  concerning  the  subjects  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  For  the  sake  of  clearness,  we  will  consider 
the  general  theme  under  three  heads  or  subdivisions: 

I.  How  to  become  a  subject  of  the  Kingdom. 

II.  What  characteristics  entitle  one  to  become  a  subject  of 

the  Kingdom. 

III.  The  duty  of  the  Kingdom’s  subjects. 

Jesus  laid  down  an  explicit  condition  of  entrance  into  His 
Kingdom  and  He  made  this  condition  imperative.  The  in¬ 
dispensable  condition,  indeed,  is  precisely  what  we  would  ex¬ 
pect  after  our  casual  study  of  Jesus’  idea  of  the  Kingdom 
in  the  last  chapter.  It  is  imposed  in  St.  Matthew  18:3,  and 
is  as  follows:  “Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  con¬ 
verted  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  While  the  saying  is  simplicity 
itself,  the  meaning  is  profound  and  searching.  The  words  mean 

78 


79 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 

that  in  order  to  enter  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  there  must  be 
on  the  part  of  the  individual  “a  definite  change  of  mind” 
and  an  absolute  break  with  the  past.  The  individual  must 
turn  himself  about,  for  this  is  substantially  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  word  orpe<f) co,  and  its  compound — ex tcrrpe</>co,  which  is 
translated  “be  converted.”  The  word  involves  the  idea  of 
a  radical  departure.  What  has  seemed  wisdom  is  now  foolish¬ 
ness,  and  what  has  seemed  foolishness  is  now  seen  to  be  the 
wisdom  of  life.  One  may  realize  more  clearly  the  import 
of  the  figure,  if  he  pictures  to  himself  a  man  who  is  walking 
along  a  path — a  path  of  his  own  selection;  he  is  obeying  his 
own  will,  following  his  own  fancy:  the  path  leads  away  from 
God.  Suddenly  there  is  a  “right  about  face”;  he  turns  and  goes 
in  an  opposite  direction.  A  change  of  mind  and  heart  has 
come;  the  man  begins  to  walk  with  God.  This,  indeed,  is 
conversion. 

And  becoming  like  a  little  child  refers  to  the  submissive  trust¬ 
fulness,  the  ready  dependence  of  the  individual  upon  God. 
What  is  the  most  obvious  characteristic  of  the  small  child? 
Is  it  not  its  utter  dependence,  its  inability  to  do  for  itself, 
its  need,  and  often  its  willingness  to  give  itself  into  the  hands 
of  others?  One  might  be  tempted  to  select  some  other  char¬ 
acteristic,  but  this  is  certainly  the  basal  feature  of  the  child- 
life,  and  that  which  most  readily  answers  to  the  require¬ 
ment  of  Jesus.  Now  this  turning  with  God  and  readiness 
to  be  absolutely  dependent  upon  Him,  Jesus  makes  the  sine 
qua  non  of  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  The 
thought  is  best  interpreted  by  the  saying,  “Not  my  will  but 
thine  be  done,  O  Lord.”  Thus  entrance  into  the  Kingdom 
of  God  is  absolutely  conditioned  upon  willingness  to  obey  God’s 
will,  to  submit  to  His  rule  or  sovereignty. 

This  drastic  requirement  is  set  forth  by  Our  Lord  in  His 
earliest  recorded  teaching  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  We  refer  to  the  conversa¬ 
tion  held  with  Nicodemus.  While  the  subject  matter  of  this 
conversation  is  well  known,  it  is  not  usually  interpreted  in 
the  light  of  its  historical  context,  but  is  made  to  serve  the  ends 
of  theological  dogmatizing.  Let  us  study  it  historically,  how’- 
ever.  This  Jew,  it  will  be  remembered,  who  came  to  Jesus  by 
night,  was  a  Pharisee  (St.  Jn.  3:1),  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin 


Jesus’  Idea 


80 

(7:50),  and  in  all  probability  a  rich  man.  With  the  tact  of 
the  polished  gentleman  he  begins  his  interview  with  Jesus 
with  the  language  of  compliment  and  appreciation.  “Rabbi, 
we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God:  for  no  man 
can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with 
him.”  Decisively,  and  even  with  the  appearance  of  abruptness, 
Jesus  replies,  addressing  Himself  not  so  much  to  the  remark 
of  Nicodemus,  as  to  what  He  knew  to  be  in  his  mind:  “Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  again ,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.”  1  Nicodemus,  indeed,  was  fondly 
picturing  the  overthrow  of  Rome  and  the  establishment  of  the 
temporal  and  the  legal  supremacy  of  Israel,  in  which  every 
Jew  as  a  Jew  had  an  inalienable  portion.  Jesus,  however, 
declares — except  any  one  (no  matter  what  his  birth)  shall 
be  born  again,  or  be  born  from  above  (as  the  word  may  be 
translated,  and  this  idea  we  are  compelled  to  include  if  we 
would  fully  understand  the  import  of  the  new  birth)  he  can¬ 
not  see  the  Kingdom  of  God.2  The  meaning  is  that  unless 
one  undergoes  a  radical  transformation  of  character — a  trans¬ 
formation  so  distinctive  and  far-reaching  as  to  be  compared 
to  being  born  again — he  cannot  see,  or  preferably  experience , 
for  that  is  what  the  word  means,  the  Kingdom  or  rule  of  God. 

This  was  certainly  enigmatical  language  to  the  aristrocratic 
Nicodemus.  Not  even  long  familiarity  with  the  idea  of  the  new 
birth,  which  proselytes  to  Judaism  were  said  to  experience  in 
passing  from  the  Gentile  to  the  Jewish  world,  could  lead 
him  to  imagine  for  an  instant  that  a  Jew  must  suffer  a  similar 
experience  in  entering  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  Surprised, 
Nicodemus  asks,  “How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old? 
can  he  enter  the  second  time  into  his  mother’s  womb,  and  be 

1  While  the  account  of  his  interview  (St.  Jn.  3:2  ff.)  was  “probably 
rehandled  and  condensed  by  the  Evangelist/’  so  that  we  do  not 
have  it  in  its  entirety,  yet  from  what  is  given  we  conclude  that  the 
paramount  subject  of  Jewish  expectation  and  discussion — “The  King¬ 
dom  of  God” — must  have  been  uppermost  in  the  mind  of  Nicodemus, 
although  it  is  unexpressed  in  the  narrative.  And  the  view  of 
membership  in  that  Kingdom  entertained  by  Nicodemus  would  be 
that  of  his  fellow  countrymen,  namely,  that  the  Kingdom  belonged 
to  every  Jew  by  virtue  of  his  birthright. 

2  Here,  at  the  very  outset  of  His  public  ministry,  Jesus  goes  to 
the  root  of  the  whole  matter,  and  sets  forth  the  fundamental  char¬ 
acter  of  the  Kingdom — spiritual  versus  material. 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom  81 

born?”  Jesus  does  not  leave  him  long  in  doubt,  but  replies 
in  language  which  Nicodemus  cannot  fail  to  understand — 
“Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God.” 
Here  we  notice  that  being  “born  again”  is  amplified  into  being 
born  “of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.”  Thus  the  new  birth,  ap¬ 
parently,  is  to  consist  of  two  parts.  What  these  parts  are, 
it  is  important  to  note. 

Nicodemus  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the  idea  of  the 
Prophets  that  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  would  witness 
the  pouring  out  of  God’s  Spirit  upon  all  flesh.  That  Spirit, 
according  to  the  Jewish  mind,  was  to  be  given  forthwith 
to  every  Jew.  This  belief,  however,  Jesus  boldly  controverts 
in  the  passage  now  before  us.  That  is  why  He  so  explicitly 
calls  the  attention  of  Nicodemus  to  the  universal  need  of  being 
“born  of  water.”  Most  important,  indeed,  is  it  to  appreciate 
the  relation  of  “water”  to  this  new  birth,  for  often  an  undue 
emphasis  along  magical  and  thaumaturgic  lines  is  attached  to 
the  water  of  Baptism.  Let  us  remember,  however,  that  Nico¬ 
demus  was  a  Pharisee,  and  that  whatever  of  the  stiff-necked 
and  the  stubborn  had  survived  from  the  ancient  Hebrews  was 
concentrated  in  the  Pharisees  of  Jesus’  day.  John,  baptizing  at 
the  Jordan,  had  attracted  multitudes  to  his  baptism.  Many 
were  baptized  of  him,  confessing  their  sins.  The  soldiers, 
the  populace,  even  the  publicans,  were  moved  to  repentance 
in  view  of  the  coming  Kingdom.  The  one  class,  however, 
which  felt  no  need  of  a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto 
righteousness  was  that  of  the  Pharisees.  Listening  to  John, 
they  yet  rejected  him.  “But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected 
the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  being  not  baptized 
of  him”  (St.  Lu.  7:30).  They  lacked  the  one  thing  needful — 
repentance.  “Born  of  water”  on  the  lips  of  Jesus,  therefore, 
established  John’s  demand  for  repentance  as  the  preeminent 
requisite  for  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  confident 
assumption  of  Nicodemus  is  thus  rudely  shattered.  He  learns 
that  the  proud  and  defiant  Pharisee,  who  boasts  of  his  virtues 
and  thanks  God  that  he  is  not  like  other  men,  must  be  trans¬ 
formed  into  the  humble  and  suppliant  Publican,  who  cries 
“God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner!”  ere  the  Kingdom  can  be  at¬ 
tained.  He  sees  also  that  this  is  a  universal  requirement.  For 


82 


Jesus'  Idea 


the  first  time,  he  grasps  the  truth  that  the  conditions  of  entrance 
into  the  Kingdom  of  God  are  both  negative  and  positive — 
“born  of  water  and  of  the  spirit.”  A  little  reflection,  however, 
would  reveal  that  this  order  was  rational,  and  also  chronological. 
Before  the  Spirit  can  be  poured  out,  there  must  be  the  receptive 
heart,  and  the  receptive  heart  is  the  repentant  heart.  The  nega¬ 
tive  must  precede  the  positive;  the  human,  the  divine.1  Thus 
Nicodemus  wTas  introduced  to  a  new  line  of  thought,  and  one 
extremely  subversive  of  his  convictions  and  his  prejudices.  Every 
man  must  become  like  a  little  child,  if  he  would  experience  the 
sovereignty  of  God.  Jesus,  indeed,  had  wrought  out  this  truth 
in  His  own  experience  in  the  Wilderness,  and  He  makes  it  the 
indispensable  condition  for  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  through¬ 
out  the  ages.2 

We  will  now  consider  what  characteristics  or  qualifications 
entitle  one  to  become  a  subject  of  the  Kingdom.  What  were 
these  qualifications  as  taught  by  Jesus?  Let  us  turn  to  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  for  our  answer.  There  the  character  of 
the  subject  of  the  Kingdom  is  depicted  and  the  essential  qualifi¬ 
cations  for  membership  are  set  forth.3  They  are  found  in  the 
Beatitudes  or  the  opening  words  of  this  Sermon  (St.  Mt. 
5:1-12).  We  read,  for  instance,  “Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
Spirit:  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ”  “Blessed  are 
they  which  are  persecuted  for  righteousness’  sake:  for  theirs  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  ”  Such  are  the  first  and  the  last  of 
the  Beatitudes.  Those  which  intervene  must  be  interpreted  in 
harmony  with  these;  for  while  “the  kingdom  of  heaven”  is  not 
mentioned  specifically  in  them,  some  variant  of  the  Kingdom,  or 
some  blessing  inherent  in  the  possession  of  the  Kingdom,  is 
enumerated.  We  have  simply  different  phases  of  the  same  truth. 

1  The  positive  and  negative  aspects  of  Baptism  are  well  brought  out 
in  the  Baptismal  Offices  of  the  Episcopal  Prayer  Book. 

2  That  Jesus,  although  He  fulfilled  the  baptism  of  John — the  bap¬ 
tism  of  water  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  as  John  foretold  that  He 
would — should  have  begun  His  ministry,  and  continued  it  for  some 
time,  by  simply  reiterating  the  cry  of  the  Baptist,  “Repent  for  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand !”  is  also  emphatic  proof  of  the 
stress  laid  by  Him  upon  repentance. 

3  We  shall  appreciate  more  fully  Jesus’  teaching  upon  this  subject 
if  we  pause  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  significance  of  this  Ser¬ 
mon.  Interesting  events  occasioned  its  delivery.  After  Jesus’  de¬ 
cision  in  the  Wilderness  and  His  entrance  upon  His  lifework  of 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


83 


These  Beatitudes,  however,  sound  strangely  indeed,  when  we 
recall  the  supreme  Beatitude  of  Jesus’  day:  “Blessed  is  the  Jew: 
for  his  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,’’  and  some  of  the  smug  and 
complacent  Beatitudes  of  more  modern  days,  such  as  “Blessed  is 
the  Baptized:  for  his  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven;”  or  “Blessed 
is  the  Churchmember :  for  his  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven;”  or, 
even,  “Blessed  is  the  Catholic:  for  his  is  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.”  There  is  evidently  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
Jesus  and  His  comtemporaries,  and  many  of  His  later  followers, 
and  in  order  to  understand  the  mind  of  the  Master,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  note  the  several  Beatitudes  in  detail,  but  briefly.1 

gaining  the  sovereignty  of  the  world  for  God  through  the  patient 
proclamation  of  the  truth,  and  suffering  for  love’s  sake,  it  became 
evident  that  such  a  herculean  task  could  not  be  performed  by  one 
man,  nor  in  one  lifetime.  Consequently,  at  the  outset  of  His  labors, 
He  sought  to  reinforce  His  efforts  by  the  appointment  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles.  “And  he  ordained  twelve  that  they  should  be  with  him, 
and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach”  (St.  Mk.  3:14).  The 
selection  of  the  Twelve,  however,  demanded  their  instruction.  There 
had  arisen  the  necessity  and  the  opportunity  for  detailed  teaching 
in  regard  to  the  Kingdom  as  He  viewed  it.  What  He  had  wrought 
out  in  the  depth  of  His  own  consciousness  must  become  the  prop¬ 
erty  of  His  disciples.  The  necessity  and  opportunity  Jesus  met 
with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Addressed  to  the  Twelve,  and  also 
to  the  larger  company  of  believers,  the  sermon  has  for  its  theme 
the  topic  ever  dearest  to  Jesus’  heart — The  Kingdom  of  God:  The 
Character  and  the  Conduct  of  its  Subjects.  In  St.  Matthew’s  version 
of  this  discourse,  some  sayings  which  were  not  originally  spoken  on 
this  occasion  may  be  included.  However,  whether  the  version  of 
St.  Matthew  or  of  St.  Luke  be  adopted,  there  is  abundant  evidence 
of  the  unity  of  the  discourse,  its  theme,  and  its  development.  The 
theme  is  enunciated  in  the  opening  words,  i.  e.,  in  the  Beatitudes. 
Those  who  regard  the  discourse  as  primarily  a  protest  against  the 
Pharisaic  interpretation  of  the  Law,  or  a  defense  against  the  Phari¬ 
saic  charge  that  Jesus  destroyed  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  make 
a  mistake,  we  think  (St.  Mt.  5:17-20).  Jesus,  viewing  the  Kingdom 
of  God  as  primarily  spiritual  and  personal,  is  endeavoring  to  set 
forth  the  ideal  character  of  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom,  and  the 
conduct  in  which  that  character  expresses  itself ;  while  in  giving 
such  instruction  He  must  necessarily  warn  against  the  current  Phari¬ 
saic  irreligion  and  defend  Himself  from  the  charge  of  being  a 
revolutionist. 

1  The  type  of  utterance  disclosed  in  the  Beatitudes  is  found  in  the 
Old  Testament:  “Blessed  is  he  that  considereth  the  poor:  the  Lord 
will  deliver  him  in  the  time  of  trouble”  (Ps.  41-1  cf.  84:5-7;  Isa. 
30:18,  20,  32;  I  Ki.  8:15).  Hence  the  type  is  borrowed  by  Jesus, 


Jesus ’  Idea 


84 


Each  word,  indeed,  is  replete  with  significance  and  first  to 
challenge  our  attention  is  the  term — “blessed.”  1 

But  who  are  thus  blessed?  First  are  “the  poor  in  spirit”; 
but  who  are  they  ?  2  “The  poor  in  spirit”  are  those  with  open 
hearts  and  minds  toward  God ;  the  humble,  not  the  self- 
sufficient.  And  to  these,  says  Jesus,  belongs  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  Jesus,  Himself,  indeed  has  given  us  a  vivid  illus¬ 
tration  of  this  spirit  in  a  familiar  parable.  The  publican,  un¬ 
willing  even  to  lift  his  eyes  toward  heaven,  and  crying  “God  be 
merciful  to  me  a  sinner!”  is  the  immortal  type  of  poverty  of 
spirit. 

and  we  must  look  for  novelty  in  the  content  and  not  in  the  form. 
Yet  here  there  is  dependence  upon  the  Old  Testament,  for  the 
ideas  and  phrases  are  also  borrowed  largely.  “The  poor/’  “the 
mourners,”  “the  meek,”  “the  hungering  and  thirsting,”  “the  merci¬ 
ful,”  “the  pure  in  heart,”  “the  peacemakers,”  “the  persecuted,”  “the 
kingdom  of  heaven,”  “the  comfort  of  the  afflicted,”  “the  inheriting 
of  the  earth,”  “the  satisfaction  of  longing  for  righteousness  and 
truth,”  “the  seeing  of  God,”  and  “the  becoming  sons  of  God,”  are 
conceptions  and  terms  common  to  the  older  Scriptures,  and  to  the 
Judaism  of  Jesus’  day.  The  Beatitudes  also  consist  of  two  clauses: 
the  one  expressing  the  condition,  the  other  the  result.  The  thought 
is  that  compliance  with  the  condition  of  the  first  part  brings  the 
result  of  the  second  part. 

1  The  Greek  word  so  translated  represents  a  Hebrew  word,  and 
comes  to  us  with  the  Hebrew  meaning.  This  word  thinks  of  man 
as  the  object  of  blessing.  When  God  is  the  subject  of  blessing,  as 
in  the  sentence,  “Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel !” — a  different 
word  is  used.  This  marked  distinction  Jesus  probably  preserved  in 
His  teaching.  The  root  from  which  this  word  is  derived  signified 
“to  go  straight,”  “to  advance.”  Thus  an  unusual  conception  of 
“blessedness”  is  gained :  it  consists  in  the  possession  of  something 
which  makes  one  “go  straight,”  or  prosper  in  that  sense.  Hence  in 
the  “blessedness”  of  the  Beatitudes  there  is  a  religious  and  ethical 
content. 

2  St.  Luke  identifies  these,  apparently,  with  the  poor  (6:20).  St. 
Luke’s  version  of  the  Beatitude  is  the  probable  original,  and  is  not 
due  to  any  tendency  to  unduly  exalt  poverty  in  itself.  St.  Matthew’s 
version  is  due  probably  to  a  desire  to  guard  the  Gentile  world  from 
a  materialistic  interpretation,  when  the  technical  word  “poor”  was 
translated  into  Greek.  This  materialistic  interpretation,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  was  widespread  in  the  Early,  and  also  in  the  Medieval 
Church,  in  the  idea  that  voluntary  poverty  was  blessed.  This  is 
still  the  interpretation  of  many  Roman  Catholic  expositors.  The 
interpretation,  however,  is  negatived  by  the  other  Beatitudes,  all 
of  which,  with  one  exception,  deal  with  inner  qualifications.  The 
exception,  however,  deals  with  an  external  condition — persecution, 


85 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 

But  again  we  read,  “Blessed  are  they  that  mourn:  for  they 
shall  be  comforted.”  A  strange  idea,  but  let  us  understand  it. 
The  Jew  thought  that  with  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  King¬ 
dom,  perfect  comfort  and  consolation  would  be  given  (Isa. 
61:2;  St.  Lu.  2:15;  4:18;  Rev.  21:4).  Mourning,  however, 
was  then  and  it  is  now  an  ever-present  fact  of  life.  No  one, 
indeed,  escapes  the  experiences  which  entail  mourning,  al¬ 
though  all  strive  to  do  so.  Now  this  universal  mourning, 
whatever  its  cause — and  an  inclusive,  not  an  exclusive  sense,  is 
to  be  posited — brings  its  own  blessing  in  the  divine  comfort 
administered.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  thought  of  Jesus.  Of 
course,  this  is  only  appreciated  by  the  spiritually  minded.  “Now 
no  chastening  for  the  present  seemeth  to  be  joyous,  but  grievous: 
nevertheless,  afterward  it  yieldeth  the  peaceable  fruit  of  right¬ 
eousness  unto  them  which  are  exercised  thereby”  (Heb.  12:11). 
Nor  is  this  relief  only  to  be  expected  in  the  distant  future? 
The  Kingdom,  or  rule  of  God,  with  its  revelation  of  the  God 
who  is  a  Father ,  speaks  infinite  peace  to  the  mourning  soul 
now.  While  the  consciousness  that  mourning  is  but  the  keen- 

which  is  superinduced  by  an  inner  qualification — righteousness. 
Now,  this  term,  in  the  Jewish  world,  bore  a  technical  meaning. 
With  us,  as  among  the  ancient  Gentiles,  the  word  is  used  in  an 
economic  sense,  and  signifies,  primarily,  poverty.  Among  the  Jews, 
however,  the  word  was  derived  from  the  Hebrew  anah,  which  meant 
to  be  humbled  or  abased.  To  the  Jew,  “the  poor”  was  one  deprived 
of  his  rights,  the  humbled  and  abased  by  oppression.  Often  these 
were  the  poor  in  an  economic  sense,  yet  the  essential  idea  is  that 
of  ill-treatment.  The  term  is  used  again  and  again  by  Prophets 
and  Psalmists  to  denote  those  oppressed  “at  the  hands  of  a  high¬ 
handed  and  cruel  aristocracy”  (See  Ps.  18-27,  9:12-18;  10:2,  9,  12; 
Isa.  61-1  and  St.  Lu.  4-18).  From  this  usage,  the  word  came  to 
designate  the  poor  who  suffer — “the  religious  poor.”  Thence,  “the 
poor”  became  the  title  of  a  party  among  the  Jews  in  process  of 
formation  some  years  before  the  Exile,  but  which  was  united  and  con¬ 
solidated  during  and  after  the  return  from  the  Captivity.  This  party, 
as  we  may  infer  from  our  previous  study,  embraced  the  devout 
and  faithful  Israelites,  in  contrast  to  “the  worldly  and  indifferent.” 
Hence,  “the  poor”  signified  “those  who  feared  and  sought  after 
God.”  Professor  Harnack,  in  speaking  of  this  class,  says:  “Often 
too  poor  to  pay  even  for  the  barest  advantages  of  and  privileges  of 
public  worship,  oppressed,  thrust  aside,  and  unjustly  treated,  they 
could  not  raise  their  eyes  to  the  Temple,  but  they  looked  to  the 
God  of  Israel,  and  fervent  prayers  went  up  to  Him:  Watchman, 
what  of  the  night?’” 


86 


Jesus ’  Idea 


edged  chisel  which,  in  the  hands  of  God,  is  carving  the  cold 
marble  of  our  individuality  into  the  likeness  of  our  great 
Exemplar  Christ,  who  was  perfected  through  suffering,  is 
both  a  comfort  and  an  inspiration.  (Heb.  5:8,  12;  3:11). 
Much  that  is  finest  in  life,  indeed,  is  born  of  sorrow  and  sad¬ 
ness.  Mourning,  then,  is  a  Christian  duty  and  privilege;  not, 
however,  the  mourning  as  of  those  who  have  no  hope. 

“All  is  in  busy,  stirring,  stormy  motion, 

And  many  a  cloud  drifts  by,  and  none  sojourns.” 

“The  worse  for  us; 

He  that  lacks  time  to  mourn,  lacks  time  to  mend, 

Eternity  mourns  that.  His  an  ill  cure 

For  life’s  worst  ills  to  have  no  time  to  feel  them. 

Where  sorrow’s  held  intrusive  and  turned  out, 

There  wisdom  will  not  enter,  nor  true  power, 

Nor  aught  that  dignifies  humanity.” 

We  also  hear,  “Blessed  are  the  meek:  for  they  shall  inherit 
the  earth.”  Now  meekness  is  the  absence  of  guile,  and  of  the 
spirit  of  the  earth.1  It  is  closely  akin  to  poverty  of  spirit. 
In  fact,  poverty  of  spirit  begets  meekness  or  tractableness 
toward  God.  And,  of  course,  this  in  turn  manifests  itself 
toward  men  in  an  attitude  of  approachableness,  gentleness,  and 
love.  It  is  the  meek,  for  instance,  who,  bowing  the  head  in 
submission,  place  their  lives  in  God’s  hands,  cooperate  with 
Him  in  His  purposes  for  the  individual  and  the  world;  who,  in 
sacrificing  all,  gain  all.  And  it  is  the  meek  who  really  inherit 
the  earth,  says  Jesus,  or  enter  into  possession  of  all  that  God 
has  to  give. 

He  also  tells  us  that  “Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness:  for  they  shall  be  filled.”  Here,  as 
in  all  of  the  Beatitudes,  the  thought  is  noble,  if  somewhat 
perplexing.  In  this  case,  the  heart,  Jesus  declares,  that  knows 
a  craving  for  the  right,  akin  in  the  intensity  of  its  pangs  to 
the  physical  need  expressed  under  the  terms  “hunger”  and 
“thirst,”  is  the  human  heart  that  will  be  satisfied.  This  is 
God’s  world,  Jesus  means,  and  God  and  the  right  will  triumph. 

1  Meekness,  in  the  Beatitudes,  looks  rather  toward  God  than 
toward  men,  following  the  Hebrew  and  not  the  Greek  usage,  which 
knew  nothing  of  meekness  toward  God,  but  only  of  meekness  toward 
men. 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


87 


He,  who  recognizing  that  man  does  not  live  by  bread  alone, 
turns  to  God  to  satisfy  his  hunger  for  the  righteousness  he 
craves,  will  be  filled  and  satisfied  in  the  knowledge  that  more 
and  more  God  and  the  right  are  triumphing  in  individual 
lives,  and  in  the  collective  life  of  the  world.  While  those  who 
hunger  for  evil  are  but  accentuating  and  intensifying  a  craving 
which  can  never  be  satisfied,  but  must  eventually  rival  in  keen¬ 
ness  and  insatiability  the  veritable  pangs  of  the  nethermost  hell. 

Another  utterance  is:  “Blessed  are  the  merciful:  for  they 
shall  obtain  mercy.”  To  be  merciful  is  both  to  possess  the 
spirit  of  compassion,  and  to  practice  benevolence.  Mercy  is, 
therefore,  subjective  and  objective,  passive  and  active — a  spirit 
and  a  practice.  If  we  follow  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word  used  in  this  Beatitude,  eleemones ,  Jesus  emphasizes  mercy 
as  a  practice ,  although  the  spirit  of  mercy  is  not  to  be  ex¬ 
cluded.  The  spirit  of  mercy  is  well  indicated  in  Jesus’  reply 
to  a  question  of  St.  Peter:  “Then  came  Peter  to  him  and 
said,  Lord,  how  oft  shall  my  brother  sin  against  me,  and  I 
forgive  him?  till  seven  times?  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  say, 
not  unto  thee,  until  seven  times,  but  until  seventy  times  seven” 
(St.  Mt.  18:21-35).  The  spirit  of  mercy  is,  therefore,  that 
which  is  illimitable  in  its  forgiveness.  The  practice  of  mercy, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  well  evidenced  in  the  conduct  of  the 
God,  “who  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good, 
and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust”;  and  in  the 
action  of  the  Man  who,  in  generous  sympathy,  when  sur¬ 
rounded  by  publicans  and  sinners,  replied  to  the  fault-finding 
Pharisees:  “They  that  be  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick.  But  go  ye  and  learn  what  that  meaneth, 
I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice:  for  I  am  not  come  to  call 
the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance”  (St.  Mt.  18:23-35). 

But  again  we  hear:  “Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart:  for  they 
shall  see  God.”  The  heart,  according  to  the  Hebrew  usage, 
signified  the  personality,  the  inmost  self.  Originally,  the  refer¬ 
ence  was  to  the  bodily  organ,  which  was  thought  of  by  the 
ancients  as  the  seat  of  life.  What  Jesus  means,  therefore,  is 
that  blessed  are  those  whose  personality,  or  inmost  self,  is  free 
from  all  heterogeneous  and  extraneous  elements,  who  enjoy  an 
unalloyed  condition  of  thought  and  feeling,  in  whom  world¬ 
liness,  materialism  or  false  religion  have  not  wrought  their 


88 


Jesus }  Idea 


baneful  work.  Where  this  unalloyed  condition  of  the  heart 
exists,  there  is  the  vision  of  God.  Not,  of  course,  that  God 
can  be  seen  with  the  physical  eye;  His  existence  and  presence 
are  spiritually  discerned.  God,  indeed,  is  only  visible  to  the 
inward  eye,  and  the  vision  of  Him  and  of  eternity,  depends 
rather  upon  cleanness  of  heart  than  clearness  of  intellect. 

Further  we  read:  “Blessed  are  the  peacemakers:  for  they 
shall  be  called  the  children  of  God.”  It  is  probable  that  two 
ideas  of  “the  peacemakers”  are  included  in  this  Beatitude: 
the  peaceable — the  passive  sense:  the  workers  for  peace — the 
active  sense.  Jesus  Christ,  however,  is  the  great  examplar 
of  both — “The  Prince  of  Peace.”  In  Him,  man  finds  peace 
with  himself,  with  his  God,  and  with  his  fellow-man.  Yet 
there  is  a  darker  side.  It  is  Jesus  Himself  who  says:  “Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth:  I  came  not  to 

send  peace,  but  a  sword.  For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  vari¬ 

ance  against  his  father,  and  a  daughter  against  her  mother, 
and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother-in-law.  And  a 
man’s  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  household”  (St.  Mt. 
10:34-36).  But  how  is  this  to  be  explained?  The  answer  is 
at  hand.  It  is  this:  There  can  be  no  permanent  peace  save 
that  of  the  kingdom,  or  rule  of  God.  This  is  true  of  the 
individual  life,  and  of  the  social  life  of  the  world.  God 

and  Satan,  indeed,  can  never  be  at  peace.  This  world  is  not, 

as  yet,  in  its  entirety  God’s  Kingdom.  Hence  Jesus,  the 
Apostles,  and  true  Christians  everywhere,  though  essentially 
peaceable  and  peacemakers,  are  the  authors  of  strife — a  strife 
of  good  with  evil,  of  truth  with  error.  Thus  among  the 
peacemakers  of  the  earth  such  men  as  Luther,  Calvin,  Savon¬ 
arola,  Wesley,  and  many  others  whose  very  names  are  synony¬ 
mous  with  agitation  and  even  revolution,  must  take  high  rank. 
And  more  and  more  to-day  are  those  who  seek  to  bring  peace 
into  the  world,  even  at  the  cost  of  strife,  being  recognized  as 
the  children  of  God.  They  resemble  Him  at  least  in  their 
striving  for  peace. 

Finally,  we  are  told  that:  “Blessed  are  they  which  are  per¬ 
secuted  for  righteousness’  sake:  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you,  and  per¬ 
secute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely, 
for  my  sake.  Rejoice,  and  be  exceeding  glad:  for  great  is 


89 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 

your  reward  in  heaven :  for  so  persecuted  they  the  prophets 
which  were  before  you.”  Persecution,  indeed,  is  the  inevitable 
accompaniment  of  righteousness.  Loyalty  to  God  and  the 
right  in  a  sinful  world  always  begets  opposition.  Experience 
had  taught  Israel  this  truth,  and  many  of  her  greatest  men  are 
immortal  illustrations  of  the  fact.  The  history  of  the  early 
Church  also  offers  convincing  testimony  to  the  foresight  of 
Jesus,  while  the  conditions  of  to-day  in  many  respects  attest 
H  is  truthfulness.  The  persecution  is  now  different  in  kind, 
it  is  true,  and  perhaps  less  in  extent,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
real,  and  often  in  its  refinement  and  ingenuousness  it  bespeaks 
Satanic  device.  As  it  was  with  the  Master,  so  it  is  with  the 
servant  (Heb.  11:33-40).  And  yet  to  the  persecuted  belongs 
the  Kingdom:  “theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 

This  unequivocal  teaching  gave  to  the  Jews  a  shock  and  a 
surprise  as  great  as  it  gives  to  thousands  to-day.  Fortunate, 
blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  the  mourners,  the  meek,  the 
hungry  and  the  thirsty  for  righteousness,  the  merciful,  the  pure 
in  heart,  the  peacemakers,  the  persecuted!  Men  cannot  be¬ 
lieve  it.  Usually  the  possessors  of  the  opposite  characteristics 
are  regarded  as  earth’s  fortunate  and  blessed.  Hence  men  ask 
again  and  again — How  are  these  fortunate?  And  Jesus  re¬ 
plies,  as  we  have  seen:  To  them  belongs  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  Now,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
the  doing  of  God’s  will,  is  it  not  profoundly  true  that  this 
is  possible  only  to  the  poor  in  spirit,  to  those  who  feel  their 
unworthiness?  Who  are  the  obedient  to  God,  and,  in  their 
obedience,  the  comforted,  but  those  who  mourn  for  their 
quondam  disobedience,  and  the  shortcomings  of  the  world  ?  Who 
really  inherit  the  earth — all  its  truest  and  highest  gifts  and 
pleasures — but  the  meek,  the  tractable,  the  submissive  finder 
and  follower  of  God’s  way?  While  those  who  hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness  seek  for  perfect  conformity  to  God‘s 
will — and  are  they  not  of  all  men  truly  filled  with  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  life,  and  satisfied  with  it? 

To  illustrate  more  fully,  however,  the  truthfulness  and  the 
significance  of  Our  Lord’s  words,  let  us  note  the  vices  of 
which  the  Beatitudes  are  the  corresponding  virtues,  and  see 
how  the  possession  of  these  renders  entrance  into  the  Kingdom 
impossible.  Pride  is  the  opposite  of  humility;  self-satisfaction, 


9° 


Jesus’  Idea 


of  mourning;  refractoriness,  of  meekness;  lethargy  and  apathy, 
of  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness;  unfeelingness, 
of  mercy;  alloy  of  heart,  of  purity  of  heart;  strivers,  of  peace¬ 
makers;  ready  compliance  with  the  world-principles,  of  persecu¬ 
tion  for  righteousness’  sake.  Now  is  it  not  uniformly  true  that 
the  arrogant  man  is  not  the  doer  of  God’s  will?  The  self- 
sufficient  man  feels  no  need  of  obedience;  refractoriness  in  its 
rebellious  spirit  cannot  submit;  lethargy  knows  no  craving; 
while  unfeelingness  cannot  enter  into  the  pity  and  compassion 
of  God.  Those  whose  hearts  are  admixed  with  a  love  of  the 
world  cannot  perceive  God’s  simplicity  of  aim  and  motive; 
and  mere  strivers  are  unable  to  appreciate  the  Kingdom,  in 
and  through  which  God  is  endeavoring  to  replace  human  strife 
by  “peace  on  earth,  good  will  among  men.”  Those,  also,  who 
are  not  persecuted  in  some  way  for  righteousness’  sake,  indicate 
their  conformity  to  the  world  by  this  immunity — an  immunity 
utterly  impossible  to  those  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  does  not  belong  to  an 
individual  in  view  of  who  he  is,  or  ivhat  he  has,  but  solely  in 
view  of  what  he  is;  further,  that  a  man’s  true  happiness  and 
prosperity  is  determined  by  his  relation  to  the  Kingdom,  or 
his  submission  to  God’s  obedience.  Thie  idea  is  extremely 
revolutionary  in  every  age.  It  explains  much,  however,  in 
Jesus’  teaching.  Because  the  individual  is  the  unit  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  the  gateway  to  the  Kingdom  lies  along 
the  pathway  of  character,  Jesus  so  assiduously  emphasized 
the  value  of  the  inner  life.  Anything  which  was  likely  to 
militate  against  this,  finds  in  Him  an  uncompromising  antag¬ 
onist.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  He  remarked  sorrowfully 
after  the  departure  of  the  rich  young  ruler:  “Verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  That  a  rich  man  shall  hardly  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  again  I  say  unto  you,  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to 
go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God”  (St.  Mt.  19:23-24).  Yet  riches 
in  themselves  are  never  denounced  by  Jesus,  although  He  does 
apparently  regard  their  possession  as  likely  to  prove  a  mis¬ 
fortune.  And  indeed  the  study  of  a  rich  man  is  often  a  study 
in  unlovely  personality.1 

1  The  great  danger  in  the  possession  of  riches  is  clearly  indicated 
by  Jesus  in  St.  Mk.  10:24:  “How  hard  is  it  for  them  that  trust  in 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom  91 

Riches,  however,  may  be  used  by  their  possessors  to  min¬ 
ister  to  their  eternal  gain.  Clearly  is  this  pointed  out  in  the 
Parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  (St.  Luke  16:  1-9).  The  moral 
of  this  parable  is  found  in  the  ninth  verse:  “And  I  say  unto 
you,  Make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the  mammon  of  unright¬ 
eousness;  that,  when  ye  fail,  they  may  receive  you  into  ever¬ 
lasting  habitations.”  Mammon,  however,  is  not  the  name  of 
a  God;  it  is  simply  money.  The  passage  then  reads:  “Make  to 
yourselves  friends  of  the  money  of  unrighteousness;  that  when 
ye  fail  (i.e.,  die)  they  may  receive  you  into  everlasting  habi¬ 
tations.”  Yet  even  here  we  notice  that  it  is  called  “the  money 
of  unrighteousness,”  because  unrighteous  means  are  frequently 
employed  in  its  acquisition,  or  because  its  possession  often  min¬ 
isters  to  unrighteousness  of  heart  and  life.  “Ye  cannot  serve 
God  and  mammon” — Jesus  says  also  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Thus  riches  are  always  likely  to  be  opposed  to  God, 
and,  therefore,  to  His  Kingdom. 

How  they  become  accursed,  Jesus  has  revealed  in  the  salient 
lessons  of  the  selfishness,  the  self-indulgence,  and  the  indiffer¬ 
ence  to  God  and  man  exhibited  by  rich  men  in  the  parables 
of  Dives  and  Lazarus  and  the  Rich  Fool.  It  is  often  vulgarly, 
if  truly,  remarked  of  persons  “that  their  money  has  made 
fools  of  them.”  Jesus  makes  the  same  remark,  without  suspi¬ 
cion  of  vulgarity,  but  with  perfect  truthfulness,  in  the  second 
of  these  parables  (St.  Lu.  12:16-21).  The  word  “fool”  in 
the  Bible,  however,  does  not  refer  primarily  to  mental  but  to 
spiritual  deficiency.  The  fool  of  the  Bible  is  not  the  brainless 
but  the  heartless  man;  the  word  bears  the  sting  of  death,  for 
it  is  sin.  The  fool  of  this  parable  had  no  doubt  displayed  ability 

riches  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.”  Unless  we  remember  the 
assault  that  wealth  makes  upon  character,  we  shall  utterly  misap¬ 
prehend  the  constant  teaching  of  the  Master  about  riches.  No  pas¬ 
sages  of  the  New  Testament  certainly  more  forcibly  reveal  the 
inward  and  essentially  subjective  character  of  the  Kingdom  than 
those  which  have  wealth  for  their  subject.  It  has  never  been  so 
difficult  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  visible  Church  as  to  justify 
the  strong  declaration  of  Our  Lord  cited  above.  The  Kingdom  in 
Jesus’  view,  however,  was  submission  to  God’s  obedience.  Hence  it 
is  so  difficult  as  to  be  practically  impossible  for  the  rich  man  to 
enter  the  Kingdom  because  of  the  inordinate  trust  in  money,  instead 
of  trust  in  God,  which  riches  usually  beget,  and  out  of  which  the 
grace  of  God  alone  can  deliver.  “With  men  it  is  impossible,  but  not 
with  God:  for  with  God  all  things  are  possible”  (St.  Mk.  10:27). 


92 


Jesus’  Idea 


of  a  high  order  in  the  amassing  of  his  fortune;  by  the  world, 
he  was  probably  accounted  sharp  and  shrewd.  Yet  Jesus  called 
him  “a  fool.”  His  meaning  may  be  gathered  from  Psalm  53:  1 
— “The  fool  hath  said  in  his  heart,  There  is  no  God.”  In  his 
heart  means  in  his  personality,  his  life,  as  we  have  seen.  From 
these,  he  excludes  God.  This,  in  fact,  is  often  the  result  of 
wealth.  While  in  the  first  of  these  parables  we  see  the  effect 
of  a  self-indulgence  which  wealth  makes  possible,  in  Dives’  feast¬ 
ing  while  Lazarus  starves  at  the  door.  Riches,  indeed,  often 
close  the  door  to  mercy.  The  money  which  seems  to  make  a 
man  is  very  likely  to  unmake  him.  Note  the  almost  proverbial 
worthlessness  of  rich  men’s  sons,  and  the  general  pitiableness 
of  a  wealthy  aristocracy’s  inconsequential  scions.  Whereas 
poverty  begetting  piety  is  often  the  preparation  for  greatness. 
Riches,  however,  are  relative.  There  is  no  absolute  standard 
to  determine  who  is  a  rich  man.  In  possessionsj  great  or  small, 
lies  the  danger;  although  the  greatness  of  the  possessions  always 
increase  the  danger  to  the  soul. 

Thus  Jesus  taught  the  essential  qualifications  for  member¬ 
ship  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  In  contrast  with  the  popular 
Jewish  view,  the  qualifications  are  individual  and  personal, 
not  racial  or  national;  they  belong  to  the  spiritual,  not  to  the 
natural  man.  These  qualities  were  not  popular  with  the  Jews, 
and  they  have  not  been  pleasing  to  the  mass  of  men  in  any 
age;  for  humanity  has  always  admired  the  more  robust  and 
masterful  qualities,  as  it  affects  to  call  them,  although  robustness 
and  masterfulness  are  the  very  essence  of  the  qualities  demanded 
by  Jesus  when  they  are  rightly  understood.  Unpalatable,  how¬ 
ever,  at  all  times,  how  bitter  must  they  have  been  to  a  people 
whose  dream  was  of  an  earthly  Kingdom,  which  should  sup¬ 
plant  Imperial  Rome  and  surpass  her  splendor.  Small  wonder 
that  Jesus  was  misunderstood  and  hated. 

Jesus,  however,  was  a  supreme  logician.  These  characteris¬ 
tics  were  a  logical  deduction  from  His  idea  of  God.  Seated 
near  Jacob’s  well  at  Sychar,  only  a  short  while  before  His 
delivery  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  conversing  with  the 
Samaritan  woman,  Jesus  revealed  His  idea  of  the  essential  na¬ 
ture  of  God.  To  the  woman,  perplexed  as  to  the  question 
whether  God  should  be  worshiped  at  Jerusalem,  as  the  Jews 
asserted,  or  on  Mt.  Gerizim,  as  the  Samaritans  contended,  Jesus 


I 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom  93 

replies:  “Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  ye  shall 
neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem,  worship  the 
Father.  .  .  .  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
worshipers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth;  for 
the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him.  God  is  spirit:  and 
they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth” 
(St.  Jn.  4:  21-24).  These  words  indeed  are  the  Magna  Charta 
of  the  soul’s  liberties  throughout  all  the  ages.  They  are  the 
very  Emancipation  Proclamation  of  the  human  spirit.  But  what 
do  they  signify? 

“God  is  spirit,”  means  that  God  is  a  Personal  Being.  We 
are  spirits,  or  personal  beings,  in  that  we  think  and  feel  and 
will:  it  is  the  possession  of  these  faculties  that  makes  one  a 
person.  Man  is  thus  made  in  the  image  of  God.  Hence,  God 
being  a  Person — thinking,  feeling  and  willing — it  follows,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  reasoning  of  Jesus,  that  true  worshipers  of  God 
must  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  i.e.,  in  that  part  of 
their  being  which  corresponds  to  God’s  Being — the  spirit:  that 
which  thinks  and  feels  and  wills.  Further,  they  must  worship 
Him  in  a  way  which  corresponds  to  the  Divine  nature,  for 
this  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  “in  truth.” 

The  worship  of  God  is  thus  dissociated  by  Jesus  from  all 
limitations  of  time  and  place,  and  associated  only  with  the  heart 
of  man,  in  that  which  thinks  and  feels  and  wills.  Not  the  ritual 
of  worship  nor  of  deeds  primarily,  not  the  dogma  of  stereotyped 
belief,  but  the  bestowal  of  the  spirit  of  the  inner  man  is  what 
God  demands  as  essential  to  true  worship.  Being,  rather  than 
believing  or  doing,  receives  the  Divine  emphasis.  Out  of  this 
essential  nature  of  God  indeed,  Jesus’  idea  of  the  Kingdom  and 
its  subjects  unfolds  as  naturally  as  the  ear  from  the  blade,  the 
lily  from  the  bud.  The  Kingdom  or  rule  of  God  must  mean 
for  the  individual — the  submission  of  the  spirit — the  self,  to 
God;  and,  of  course,  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  must  be  those 
whose  spirits  brook  this  submission.  Humility  is  thus  the  first 
rung  in  the  ladder  by  which  the  true  worshiper  climbs  heaven¬ 
ward;  it  is  the  prologue  to  spiritual  progress.1 

1  How  the  spirit  of  the  Kingdom,  or  of  true  worship,  expresses 
itself  both  toward  God  and  man,  Jesus  illustrates  in  the  exquisite 
teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  More  admirable  than  any 
commentary  is  the  Sermon  itself,  and  just  here  the  reader  is  asked 
to  read  the  Sermon  in  its  entirety. 


94 


Jesus’  Idea 


Thus,  with  Jesus,  we  return  to  the  conception  of  the  King¬ 
dom,  as  it  existed  in  the  mind  of  God  from  all  eternity:  A 
Kingdom  of  God  in  humanity,  a  conscious  and  willing  obedi¬ 
ence;  a  conception  ruthlessly  rejected  in  the  rebellion  of  man¬ 
kind,  but  now  seeking  realization  through  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
Having  noted  the  condition  of  entrance  into  the  Kingdom,  and 
the  predisposing  qualifications,  we  will  now  consider  briefly 
the  salient  duty  of  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom. 

While  membership  in  the  Kingdom  confers  great  privileges 
and  blessings,  it  also  entails  great  responsibilities  and  duties. 
In  fact,  as  soon  as  Jesus  had  disclosed  the  blessing  inherent  in 
membership,  He  supplemented  it  with  an  explicit  statement  of 
the  duty  involved.  The  members  of  the  Kingdom  were  to  be 
the  light  of  the  world,  and  the  salt  of  the  earth.  In  rejecting 
the  popular  Jewish  conception  of  the  Kingdom,  Jesus  did  not 
reject  the  idea  of  a  rule  by  conquest.  His  was  to  be  a  conquer¬ 
ing  Kingdom.  The  apparently  negative  virtues  which  He  de¬ 
manded,  however,  seemed  to  the  Jews,  enamored  of  the  idea 
of  forcible  conquest,  utterly  incapable  of  winning  a  Kingdom. 
If  Jesus  was  to  found  a  Kingdom — how  was  it  to  be  extended? 
That  was  a  perplexing  question.  The  idea  of  conquest,  how¬ 
ever,  had  always  been  present  in  the  concept  of  the  Kingdom, 
as  we  have  seen.  The  family  or  clan,  during  the  Patriarchal 
period,  had  been  selected  with  the  view  of  conquering  humanity 
by  blessing  it.  The  nation  was  chosen  at  Sinai  as  a  kingdom 
of  priests  to  reconcile  men  to  God.  This  thought  also  had 
ever  been  a  part  of  the  prophetic  teaching.  In  view  of  this, 
and  the  perplexity  of  the  Jews,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find 
Jesus  dwelling  with  especial  emphasis  upon  the  vast  responsibility 
of  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  toward  the  world.1 

The  idea  of  a  forcible  conquest  of  the  world,  however,  had 
been  met  in  the  Temptation  with  the  ideal  of  a  bloodless  con¬ 
quest  through  truth  and  love.  The  weapons  of  war  were  dis- 

1  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth :  but  if  the  salt  has  lost  its  savor, 
wherewith  shall  it  be  salted?  it  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing,  but 
to  be  cast  out,  and  to  be  trodden  under  foot  of  men.  Ye  are  the 
light  of  the  world.  A  city  that  is  set  on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid.  Neither 
do  men  light  a  candle,  and  put  it  under  a  bushel,  but  on  a  candle¬ 
stick;  and  it  giveth  light  unto  all  that  are  in  the  house.  Let  your 
light  so  shine  before  men  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and 
glorify  your  father  which  is  in  heaven”  (St.  Mt.  5:13-16). 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


95 


carded  for  those  of  peace.  This  becomes  conspicuously  apparent 
as  Jesus  sets  forth  the  duty  of  the  Kingdom’s  subjects. 

First  is  the  duty  of  illuminating  the  dense  darkness  of  the 
world  by  the  light  of  God’s  truth,  as  it  is  revealed  in  the  words 
and  deeds  of  the  individual  subjects  of  the  Kingdom. 

“Heaven  doth  with  us  as  we  with  torches  do, 

Not  light  them  for  themselves:  for  if  our  virtues 
Did  not  go  forth  of  us,  ’twere  all  alike 
As  if  we  had  them  not.  Spirits  are  not  finely  touched 
But  to  fine  issues.” 

The  Kingdom  of  God,  indeed,  is  truth:  “the  Truth ”  about 
God  and  Man  and  Life  (St.  Jn.  18:37),  and  Jesus  trusted 
absolutely  in  the  self-propagating  power  of  this  truth,  as  we 
shall  see  more  fully  in  our  next  Chapter.  Indeed,  the  truth 
of  God  and  the  heart  of  man  are  adapted  each  for  the  other, 
and  are  mutually  complementary.  This  sublime  confidence  ex¬ 
presses  Jesus’  whole  life.  He  lived  and  died  for  the  truth.  In 
fact,  the  sublime  confidence  of  Jesus  in  the  winning  power  of 
truth  is  well  expressed  by  the  Poet: 

“Truth  only  needs  to  be  for  once  spoke  out, 

And  there's  such  music  in  her,  such  strange  rhythm, 

As  makes  men’s  memories  her  joyous  slaves, 

And  clings  around  the  soul,  as  the  sky  clings 
Round  the  mute  earth,  forever  beautiful, 

And,  if  o’erclouded,  only  to  burst  forth 
More  all  embracingly  divine  and  clear : 

Get  but  the  truth  once  uttered,  and  ’tis  like 
A  star  new-born,  that  drops  into  its  place, 

And  which,  once  circling  in  its  placid  round, 

Not  all  the  tumult  of  the  earth  can  shake.” 

However,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  in  the  extension 
of  the  Kingdom  there  is  a  supernatural  factor.  Christianity, 
indeed,  always  unites  Heaven  and  earth,  even  in  its  agencies 
of  extension.  It  is  both  an  ideal  of  life  and  a  power  in  life. 
Plence  we  expect  a  supernatural  element.  Man,  however,  has 
his  part  no  less  than  God.  Man  wields  the  mighty  weapon  of 
truth  in  word  and  deed.  It  is  the  seed  which  he  sows.  In 
itself,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  adapted  to  the  soil  of  the  human 
heart  and  the  soil  is  suited  to  it.  Yet,  as  the  seed  demands 
sunshine  and  rain,  and  much  else  for  its  growth,  so  the  seed 


96 


Jesus 1  Idea 


of  truth,  sown  by  man,  needs  for  its  germination,  growth  and 
fruitage,  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  are  not,  how¬ 
ever,  considering  the  supernatural,  but  the  human  factor  in 
the  extension  of  the  Kingdom. 

The  antiseptic  properties  of  salt,  Our  Lord  brings  before 
the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom,  also,  to  illustrate  their  duty  in 
preventing  corruption  in  human  life.  As  salt  is  also  used  to 
extract  flavors,  so  the  Kingdom’s  subjects  are  to  extract  from 
life  all  that  is  sweetest  in  it,  to  exercise  a  freshening  influence 
upon  the  moral,  the  intellectual,  and  the  social  life  of  the  world, 
and  to  give  to  everything  its  true  flavor.  Hence,  whether  the 
Kingdom  and  its  subjects  act  openly  like  Light,  or  secretly  like 
Salt,  the  Kingdom  is  to  be  a  conquering  Kingdom.  Its  subjects 
are  to  illumine  the  world’s  darkness,  to  preserve  it  from  further 
corruption,  and  to  extract  what  is  sweetest  in  life.  Thus  the 
duty  is  clearly  imposed;  but  how,  more  specifically,  shall  it  be 
fulfilled  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question  constitutes  one  of  Christianity’s 
many  startling  paradoxes — conquest  by  submission ;  victory 
through  'defeat;  the  Crown  through  the  Cross;  priesthood 
through  sacrifice  of  self;  Reconciliation  through  priesthood.  It 
has  been  said  that  “Christianity,  the  true  Christianity,  carries 
no  arms;  it  wins  its  way  by  lowly  service,  by  patience,  and  by 
self-sacrifice.”  These  were  undoubtedly  the  successful  weapons 
of  its  earlier  warfare,  and  they  have  ever  been  the  means  of 
Christianity’s  triumphs  where  permanent  conquests  have  been 
made.  The  power  of  truth  and  of  self-sacrifice — that  is,  love — 
whether  manifested  in  life  or  in  death  was,  and  is,  the  mightiest 
weapon  for  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom.  Jesus,  in  fact, 
founded  the  Kingdom  by  dying  for  it,  no  less  than  by  living  for 
it.  “I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
unto  me,”  says  the  Master  (St.  Jn.  12:32),  and  the  subjects 
of  the  Kingdom,  like  their  King,  must  extend  the  Kingdom  by 
similar  means.  Goodness,  indeed,  is  contagious  as  well  as  evil, 
and  that  which  will  most  quickly  fan  into  flame  the  slumbering 
spark  of  divinity  latent  within  every  man,  is  the  example  of  self- 
sacrifice  and  the  personal  embodiment  of  truth.  The  type  of 
character,  therefore,  developed  within  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
in  itself  the  most  effective  agency  in  the  extension  of  the  King¬ 
dom.  Because  the  character  of  the  subject  is  of  the  highest 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


97 


attractiveness  and  beauty,  men  are  drawn  toward  the  King¬ 
dom.  As  Tennyson  declares:  “We  needs  must  love  the  highest 
when  we  see  it.”  The  law  is  apparently  inwrought  in  human 

nature. 

The  marvelous  effectiveness  of  this  character  as  a  mission¬ 
ary  agency  is  seen  in  the  homage  paid  to  Jesus  among  all  peo¬ 
ples.1  Not  only  is  the  effectiveness  of  this  character  evidenced, 
however,  in  the  Person  of  the  Kingdom’s  Founder,  it  is  also 
manifest  in  the  wondrous  triumphs  won  in  the  first  three  centu¬ 
ries  of  Christianity’s  existence.  These  were  won  in  the  face 
of  a  bitterly  hostile  world,  which  vented  its  wrath  and  opposi¬ 
tion  in  the  most  untiring  persecutions,  which  were  continued 
for  several  centuries,  until  the  alliance  of  Church  and  State. 
Beginning  with  the  first  persecution  of  the  Christians  in  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  when  the  brilliant  Stephen  was  sacrificed  to  the  implacable 
hatred  of  bigoted  Jews,  until  the  close  of  the  last  Imperial 
persecution,  what  weapons  could  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom 
wield  against  their  bitter  foes?  None  save  the  sublime  appeal 
of  truth  and  of  self-sacrifice — more  irresistible  than  all  the 
weapons  of  human  ingenuity.  They  could  not  use  the  weapons 
of  a  carnal  warfare.  The  Master  had  said:  “My  Kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world;  if  my  Kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews:  but  now  is  my  Kingdom  not  from  hence”  (St.  Jn. 
18:36).  The  world,  indeed,  has  acknowledged  the  power  of 
this  weapon  in  the  saying:  “The  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the 
seed  of  the  Church.”  2 

1  While  nations  have  their  heroes  who  receive  the  plaudits  of  their- 
countrymen,  and  even  a  single  nation  may  furnish  a  hero  to  the 
world  whose  fame  outgrows  national  or  even  racial  limitations,  there 
is  only  One  whose  name  is  above  every  name  and  who  receives  the 
homage  of  all  men,  irrespective  of  clime,  or  race,  or  age.  This 
exalted  position  is  accorded  the  Galilean  Peasant,  at  least  by 
thoughtful  minds,  chiefly  because  of  the  simplicity  and  the  beauty 
of  His  life  of  love  and  service — a  life  crowned  and  adorned  with 
the  cruel  Cross  of  Calvary.  The  sublimity  of  His  Life  and  Death 
has  ever  riveted  the  attention  of  men,  and  prompted  their  glad 
acclaim — “My  Lord  and  My  God.” 

3  We  are  not  amazed,  then,  to  find  Tertullian,  about  220  A.  D., 
testifying  to  the  widespread  diffusion  of  Christianity,  or  extension 
of  the  Kingdom.  After  making  every  allowance  for  rhetorical  effect 
and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  advocate,  there  is  a  large  element  of 
truth  in  the  passage :  “For  whom  have  the  nations  believed — 


98 


Jesus’  Idea 


That  Jesus  was  justified  then  in  the  selection  of  these 
weapons,  the  testimony  of  ages  attests.  Men  and  women  were 
to  be  brought  to  the  obedience  of  God  through  the  proclama¬ 
tion  of  truth  in  word  and  deed,  and  by  the  power  of  self- 
sacrifice.  In  turn,  they  were  to  become  the  Light  of  the  World, 
and  the  Salt  of  the  Earth.  Truth,  indeed,  is  Light,  and  Love 
is  Salt.  In  the  Kingdom  of  God,  then,  the  sole  forces  on  the 
human  side  are  the  compelling  power  of  truth,  and  the  appeal¬ 
ing  power  of  love.  By  these  means  alone  is  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  which  had  been  wrecked  by  Adam  (humanly  speaking), 
to  be  launched  by  Jesus,  the  Second  Adam,  and  brought  to  the 
haven  of  God’s  conscious,  willing  and  loving  obedience. 

We  now  see  how  much  more  comprehensive  and  spiritual 
are  the  Kingdom  and  its  subjects  in  the  view  of  Jesus  than  in 
the  thought  of  even  the  inspired  prophets.  Yet  His  view  had 
its  roots  in  the  past.  There  was  a  continuity  of  thought  and 
purpose.  These  words  of  St.  Peter,  for  instance,  are  singu¬ 
larly  reminiscent  of  those  which  describe  the  ancient  covenant 
of  Israel  to  which  reference  has  been  made.  “Ye  also,  as  lively 
stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer 
up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  . 
Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation, 
a  peculiar  people;  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  praises  of  him 
who  hath  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light: 

Parthians,  Medes,  Elamites,  and  they  who  inhabit  Mesopotamia, 
Armenia,  Phrygia,  Cappadocia,  and  they  who  dwell  in  Pontus,  and 
Asia,  and  Pamphylia,  tarriers  in  Egypt,  and  inhabiters  of  the  regions 
of  Africa  which  is  beyond  Cyrene,  Romans,  and  sojourners,  yes, 
and  in  Jerusalem,  Jews  and  all  other  nations,  as  for  instance  by  this 
time,  the  varied  races  of  the  Gaetulians,  and  manifold  confines  of 
the  Moors,  all  the  limits  of  Spain,  and  the  diverse  nations  of  the 
Gauls,  and  the  haunts  of  the  Britons  (inaccessible  to  the  Romans, 
but  subjugated  to  Christ),  and  of  the  Sarmatians,  and  Dacians,  and 
Germans,  and  Scythians,  and  of  many  remote  nations,  in  all  of 
which  places  the  name  of  Christ  who  is  already  come,  reigns  as 
of  him  before  whom  the  gates  of  all  cities  have  been  opened.”  Nor 
were  the  Kingdom’s  weapons  of  Truth  and  Self-sacrifice  of  avail 
only  in  reaching  one  or  two  classes,  for  Tertullian  again  testifies 
to  the  diversified  character  of  the  Kingdom’s  subjects:  “The  outcry 
is  that  the  State  is  filled  with  Christians,  that  they  are  in  the  fields, 
in  the  citadels,  in  the  islands;  they  make  lamentation  as  for  some 
calamity,  that  both  sexes,  every  age  and  condition,  even  high  rank 
are  passing  over  to  the  profession  of  the  Christian  faith.” 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


99 


which  in  time  past  were  not  a  people,  but  are  now  the  people 
of  God”  (St.  Pet.  2:  5,  9,  10).  The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom, 
indeed,  as  well  as  the  Chosen  People,  were  destined  to  be  a  Holy 
Nation — a  Kingdom  of  Priests. 

We  cannot  leave  this  subject  without  cursory  reference  to 
the  question  of  rank  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Jewish  mind, 
vitiated  by  materialistic  tendencies,  pictured  a  temporal  King, 
and  an  earthly  court  with  courtiers  of  every  kind  and  degree. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  was  simply  a  Kingdom  of  the  world  much 
magnified.  In  contrast  to  the  gradations  of  court-life,  with 
their  accompanying  conventionality,  artificiality,  and  insincerity, 
Jesus  demanded  of  his  courtiers  the  simplicity  and  guilelessness 
of  childhood.1  Such  abstract  teaching  as  this,  however,  was 
not  sufficient  to  overcome  the  inveterate  ideas  and  expectations 
of  the  disciples.  More  concrete  illustration  was  demanded. 
Old  ideas  die  hard.  Hence  we  read  of  that  singular  interview 
of  James  and  John  with  Jesus  as  they  seek  high  place  in  the 
Kingdom.2 

1  “And  he  came  to  Capernaum :  and  being  in  the  house,  he  asked 
them,  What  is  it  that  ye  disputed  among  yourselves  by  the  way? 
But  they  held  their  peace:  for  by  the  way  they  had  disputed  among 
themselves  who  should  be  the  greatest.  And  he  sat  down  and  called 
the  twelve,  and  saith  unto  them,  If  any  man  desire  to  be  the  first,  the 
same  shall  be  last  of  all,  and  servant  of  all.  And  he  took  a  child 
and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them’5  (St.  Mk.  9:33-35). 

2  “And  James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  come  unto  him, 
saying,  Master,  we  would  that  thou  shouldest  do  for  us  whatsoever 
we  desire.  And  he  said  unto  them,  What  would  ye  that  I  should  do 
for  you?  They  said  unto  him,  Grant  unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one 
on  thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on  thy  left,  in  thy  glory.  But  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask:  can  ye  drink  of  the  cup 
that  I  drink  of  ?  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  bap¬ 
tized  with?  And  they  said  unto  him,  We  can.  And  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of ;  and 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall  ye  be  baptized : 
But  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left  hand  is  not  mine  to 
give:  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared.  And 
when  the  ten  heard  it  they  began  to  be  much  displeased  with  James 
and  John.  But  Jesus  called  them  to  him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye 
know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  exer¬ 
cise  lordship  over  them ;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority 
upon  them.  But  not  so  shall  it  be  among  you :  but  whosoever  will 
be  great  among  you,  shall  be  your  minister :  And  whosoever  of  you 
will  be  the  chiefest,  shall  be  the  servant  of  all.  For  even  the  Son  of 
Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give 


IOO 


Jesus’  Idea 


The  Kingdom  itself,  however,  is  infinitely  more  than  posi¬ 
tion,  honor  and  adulation.  Lobbying,  too,  as  we  see  from  this 
incident,  is  never  successful  in  the  Kingdom,  although  it  is 
often  very  successful  in  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  King¬ 
dom,  indeed,  the  most  stringent  Civil  Service  prevails.  The 
position  always  corresponds  absolutely  to  the  personal  fitness 
for  the  position.  There  are  no  misfits.  There  is  no  officialdom. 
Sycophancy  and  nepotism  have  no  portion  there.  On  the  God- 
ward  side,  indeed,  the  Kingdom  is  an  absolute  Monarchy;  on 
the  Manward  side,  it  is  the  purest  of  Republics ;  it  is  the  essence 
of  democracy,  and  its  highest  positions  are  open  to  all  its  sub¬ 
jects  alike,  and  are  gained  alone  through  service  and  merit. 

To  emphasize  the  lofty  character  of  service  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  Jesus  washed  the  feet  of  the  disciples  at  the  Passover 
Supper.  Resuming  His  seat,  His  words  indicate  the  significance 
of  the  act.1  This  indeed  is  a  splendid  lesson  in  humility.  To 
regard  the  Master’s  action  as  the  institution  of  a  rite  which 
is  obligatory  upon  all  Christians  is,  of  course,  to  pervert  the 
meaning  of  the  act.  The  principle  is  infinitely  more  impor¬ 
tant  than  the  action  itself,  and  the  principle  established  is  that 
of  greatness  through  service;  the  idea,  that  greatness  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  lowliest  service. 

“Wouldst  thou  the  holy  hill  ascend 
And  see  the  Father’s  face 
To  all  His  children  lowly  bend 
And  seek  the  lowest  place. 

his  life  a  ransom  for  many”  (St.  Mk.  10:35-45).  The  import  of 
this  passage  is  apparent. 

St.  Matthew  gives  substantially  the  same  interview,  with  one 
difference,  however.  It  is  the  mother  of  Zebedee’s  children  who 
comes  with  her  sons  and  desires  high  position  in  the  Kingdom  (St. 
Mt.  20:20-28).  She  is  thus  the  first  of  many  mothers  who  desire 
preferment  for  their  sons,  and  ignore  the  salient  fact  that  prefer¬ 
ment  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  comes  only  through  a  life  of  lowly 
service,  and  by  drinking  the  cup  of  bitterness  and  sorrow,  which  is 
the  portion  of  every  prophet  of  the  Living  God. 

1  “Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord:  and  ye  say  well;  for  so  I  am. 
If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed  your  feet;  ye  also 
ought  to  wash  one  another’s  feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example, 
that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you.  Verily,  Verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord ;  neither  he  that 
is  sent  greater  than  he  that  sent  him.  If  ye  know  these  things* 
happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  them”  (St.  Jn.  13:13-17). 


The  Subjects  of  the  Kingdom 


IOI 


Thus  humbly  doing  on  the  earth 
What  things  the  earthly  scorn, 

Thou  shalt  assert  the  lofty  birth 
Of  all  the  lowly  born.” 

Ambition,  indeed,  unless  it  is  the  desire  to  become  great 
through  service  of  mankind,  is  a  mark  of  littleness.  It  is 
simply  selfishness  which  would  use  others  for  personal  ends. 
And  selfishness  is  the  opposite  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

To  illustrate  further  how  selfishness  defeats  its  own  ends, 
and  to  warn  against  it,  Jesus  spoke  the  very  suggestive  Parable 
of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard  (St.  Mt.  19:  27  and  20:  1-16). 
Saint  Peter  expected  great  things  because  he  had  forsaken  all 
and  followed  Jesus.  With  quick  incisiveness  we  hear  this  para¬ 
ble  with  its  keen  rebuke  of  St.  Peter’s  self-seeking,  and  its 
unmistakable  warning  in  the  words:  “So  the  last  shall  be  first, 
and  the  first  last,  for  many  be  called  but  few  chosen.”  The 
great  lesson  of  the  parable  is  this.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  the 
reward  given  to  its  subjects  for  service  so  far  transcends  the 
sphere  of  ordinary  business  life  that  whatever  is  given  to  the 
most  ardent,  and  to  the  first  laborer,  so  greatly  exceeds  all  that 
he  could  earn  or  demand  as  the  result  of  service  that  no  injus¬ 
tice  is  done  him  if  the  Master  sees  fit  to  give  a  like  reward  to 
those  who  have  wrought  only  one  hour.  Failure  to  recognize 
this,  and  the  endeavor  to  introduce  the  eminently  Jewish  and 
commercial  spirit — quid  pro  quo — into  the  Kingdom,  might 
make  Peter  verily  the  last  instead  of  the  first,  for  the  Kingdom 
is  love  of  others,  not  of  self. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  KINGDOM’S  METHOD  OF  DEVELOPMENT 

We  recall  that  two  features  were  brought  forward  promi¬ 
nently  by  the  Jews  in  regard  to  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God :  The  hated  Roman  yoke  was  to  be  cast  off,  and  the  world’s 
sovereignty  transferred  from  Rome  to  Israel.  This  would  be 
brought  about  by  some  catastrophe  or  cataclysm.  Hence  the 
inauguration  of  the  Kingdom  was  popularly  conceived  as  sud¬ 
den,  and  its  consummation  as  a  matter  of  a  little  while.1  Jesus, 
however,  much  to  the  surprise  and  disgust  of  the  Jews,  compared 
the  development  of  the  Kingdom  ( i )  to  the  growth  of  a  seed 
in  method;  (2)  to  that  of  a  mustard  seed  in  result ;  and  (3)  to 
the  fermentation  of  leaven  for  the  manner  of  its  intensive 
development. 

To  the  popular  conception  of  the  sudden  and  dazzling  advent 
of  the  Kingdom  and  its  rapid  extension,  Jesus,  in  fact,  opposed 
the  vital  process  of  growth.  His  analogy  was  that  of  a  seed 
planted  by  a  gardener,  who  simply  sows  his  seed,  and  sleeping 
by  night  and  working  by  day,  is  without  worry  and  appar- 

1  Traces  of  this  view  are  often  met  with  in  the  New  Testament. 
Jesus,  asked  by  the  Pharisees,  “When  the  Kingdom  of  God  should 
come  ?”  replied :  “The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observa¬ 
tion;  neither  shall  they  say,  Lo  here!  or,  lo  there!  for,  behold,  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,”  or  in  the  midst  of  you  (St.  Lu. 
17:20,  21).  After  the  Resurrection,  also,  the  disciples  say,  “We 
hoped  that  it  was  he  which  should  redeem  Israel”  (St.  Lu.  24:21), 
having  in  mind  the  immediate  introduction  of  the  Kingdom.  During 
the  forty  days  also  between  the  Resurrection  and  the  Ascension,  the 
question  asked  directly  by  the  Apostles  was,  “Lord,  dost  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  Kingdom  to  Israel?”  (Acts  1:6).  We  are 
surprised  to  encounter  this  strange  ignorance  of  the  character  of  the 
Kingdom  at  the  close  of  Jesus’  ministry,  and  after  His  years  of 
teaching  and  the  Apostles’  intimate  association  with  Him.  It  only 
proves,  however,  that  Jesus’  idea  of  the  Kingdom  and  its  method 
of  establishment  was  “so  wholly  out  of  line  with  the  ambitions  and 
expectations  of  the  Jewish  people”  that  only  by  the  greatest  effort 
could  they  grasp  His  teaching. 


102 


The  Kingdom’ s  Method  of  Development  103 


ently  indifferent  to  its  fate.  Yet,  because  of  the  inherent  char¬ 
acter  of  the  seed,  and  the  inherent  nature  of  the  soil,  and  their 
mutual  adaptability,  the  seed  germinates  and  grows,  the  gar¬ 
dener  knows  not  how.  “And  he  said,  so  is  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed  into  the  ground ;  and  should  sleep 
and  rise  night  and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  and  grow  up, 
he  knoweth  not  how.  For  the  earth  bringeth  forth  fruit  of 
herself;  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that  the  full  corn  in 
the  ear.  But  when  the  fruit  is  brought  forth,  immediately  he 
putteth  in  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is  come”  (St.  Mk. 
4:26-30). 

The  seed,  of  course,  in  this  parable  is  the  idea  of  the  King¬ 
dom,  or  rule  of  God,  and  the  soil  into  which  this  idea  is  sown 
is  the  human  heart.  Then,  because  of  the  mutual  fitness  of 
the  seed  and  the  soil,  the  seed  germinates  and  grows.  This 
was  novel  teaching  to  the  Jews,  and  it  struck  a  fatal  blow  at 
the  prevalent  opinion.  Its  significance,  indeed,  was  unmistak¬ 
able.  It  meant  that  the  mechanical  conception  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Kingdom  must  give  place  to  the  vital.  Henceforth 
growth  was  the  fundamental  law.  When  we  recall,  however, 
the  inward  and  spiritual  nature  of  the  Kingdom,  as  it  was 
conceived  by  Jesus,  we  appreciate  readily  the  analogy.  He 
taught,  and  He  must  necessarily  have  taught,  that  the  ascend¬ 
ency  of  God’s  rule  over  the  heart  of  man,  and  over  the  world 
of  man,  would  be  like  the  slow  and  unobserved,  but  sure,  growth 
of  the  planted  seed.  “First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the 
full  corn  in  the  ear:”  “So  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.” 

Further,  once  planted,  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom — God’s  rule 
being  needful  to  man,  and  man  recognizing  the  need  of  God’s 
sovereignty — will  grow  slowly  and  quietly,  apart  from  human 
anxiety.  Hence  the  Kingdom  did  not  demand  forcing,  as  the 
Jews  supposed.  No  temporal  arm  of  the  State  upon  which  to 
lean  was  necessary;  nor  were  the  favorite  methods  of  the 
ecclesiastic  “in  preserving  the  faith”  in  vogue  with  Jesus.  Re¬ 
liance,  so  far  as  human  effort  was  concerned,  was  placed  simply 
upon  planting;  and  this  being  done,  the  self-propagating  power 
of  truth,  in  conjunction  with  the  vitalizing  power  of  the  human 
heart,  became  the  active  agent.  “ The  earth  bringeth  forth  fruit 
of  herself T 

Nothing  could  have  been  further,  however,  from  the  Jewish 


104 


Jesus’  Idea 


mind  than  such  a  conception.  The  Apocalyptic  idea,  indeed, 
has  vanished  in  a  moment,  and  Nature  is  at  hand.  Nature,  in 
fact,  has  become  the  parable  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This 
substitution,  effected  so  quietly  by  Jesus,  was  fraught,  however, 
with  vast  results  for  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom.  It  compelled 
forthwith  the  entire  reconstruction  of  Jewish  thought;  it  was 
the  rock  upon  which  long-standing  hope  and  expectation  was 
dashed  in  pieces.  How  momentous  its  conclusions  were  may  be 
gathered  from  the  principles  outstanding  in  the  parable.  The 
three  fundamental  truths  derived  are:  First,  that  the  Kingdom 
of  God  has  a  self-propagating  power;  second,  that  it  grows 
silently  and  unobservedly ;  and,  third,  that  it  has  an  orderly 
sequence  of  growth :  the  early  stages  being  preparatory  to  the 
consummation.  The  Apostles,  strange  to  relate,  even  the  bril¬ 
liant  and  profound  Paul,  failed  to  understand  this,  and  we  find 
them,  in  common  with  the  entire  Apostolic  Church,  looking  for 
the  speedy  consummation  of  the  Kingdom,  as  the  reader  may  see 
from  a  perusal  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  Their 
failure  to  appreciate  the  Kingdom’s  analogy  of  growth  is  par¬ 
donable,  however,  in  view  of  their  strenuous  devotion  to  the 
mechanical  conception  of  the  Apocalyptic  literature. 

But  the  Jews  dreamed,  also,  of  the  Kingdom’s  inauguration 
amidst  pomp  and  splendor,  and  this  expectation  was  in  full 
accord  with  human  nature,  which  usually  demands  that  all  un¬ 
dertakings  of  importance  shall  be  launched  amid  attention  and 
furor.  This  thought,  indeed,  was  present  even  to  the  mind  of 
Jesus  in  the  temptation  to  cast  Himself  from  the  pinnacle  of 
the  Temple,  as  we  have  seen.  It  was  necessary  for  Jesus,  how¬ 
ever,  in  view  of  His  decision  in  the  Wilderness,  to  violate  at 
every  point  the  most  cherished  traditions  of  the  Jews.  Hence, 
He  not  only  likened  the  development  of  the  Kingdom  to  the 
growth  of  a  seed,  but  selected  specifically  the  mustard  seed. 
This  was  a  very  small  seed;  so  small,  indeed,  that  it  had  fur¬ 
nished  a  proverbial  expression  to  the  Jews.  When  they  desired 
to  signify  the  minuteness  of  anything,  it  was  customary  to  speak 
of  it  as  being  as  “small  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed.”  Jesus, 
Himself,  seems  to  have  been  aware  of  this  usage,  if  we  may 
judge  from  His  remark  that  if  the  disciples  had  “faith  as  a 
grain  of  mustard  seed,”  nothing  would  be  impossible  to  them 
(St.  Mt.  17:20).  “Another  parable  put  he  forth  unto  them, 


The  Kingdom7 s  Method  of  Development  105 


saying,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  a  grain  of  mustard 
seed,  which  a  man  took  and  sowed  in  his  field ;  Which  indeed 
is  the  least  of  all  seeds;  but  when  it  is  grown,  it  is  the  great¬ 
est  among  herbs,  and  becometh  a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the 
air  come  and  lodge  in  the  branches  thereof”  (St.  Mt.  13 :  31-32  > 
cf.  St.  Mk.  4:30-32;  St.  Lu.  13:  18-19). 

By  this  parable  Jesus  indicated  an  additional  characteristic 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  The  seed,  which  was  the  most 
insignificant  of  all  seeds,  grew  into  the  largest  of  annual  gar¬ 
den  shrubs.  The  Mustard  Tree  was  not,  properly  speaking, 
a  tree,  as  is  sometimes  supposed,  but  a  large  shrub,  such  being 
called  trees  among  Orientals.  The  plant,  indeed,  grew  with 
remarkable  rapidity,  and  often  attained  the  height  of  ten  or 
twelve  feet,  with  widely  extending  branches,  which  offered 
attraction  for  the  passing  birds  in  way  of  shelter,  rest  and  food ; 
the  mustard  being  a  common  food  for  pigeons.  Hence  it  was 
selected  by  Jesus  to  illustrate  the  noticeably  disproportionate 
result  between  a  beginning  and  an  end,  between  the  tiny  seed, 
so  insignificant  and  unpromising  in  itself,  and  the  ultimate 
luxuriant  growth. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  observe  that  a  favorite  figure  adopted 
among  the  Biblical  writers  to  illustrate  the  development  of 
various  Oriental  kingdoms  was  that  of  a  growing  tree.  The 
reference  of  Ezekiel  31:3,  9  to  the  Assyrian  kingdom,  and  of 
Daniel  4:10,  12,  are  excellent  examples  of  this  tendency.  The 
development  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  itself  was  also  so  illus¬ 
trated  (Ez.  17:22,  24;  Ps.  80:8).  It  is  noticeable,  however, 
that  the  figure  adopted  is  always  that  of  a  luxuriant  vine,  a 
stately  cedar,  or  some  imposing  tree,  such  an  analogy  being  alone 
deemed  worthy  for  the  great  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  or  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Hence,  the  comparison  of  the  Kingdom  in 
its  beginning  and  development  to  the  small  grain  of  mustard 
by  Jesus  is  the  more  marked. 

This  analogy,  however,  served  Jesus’  purpose  admirably. 
For  what  beginning  could  have  been  more  insignificant  than  the 
beginning  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth?  A  peasant  carpenter  of  a  despised  province;  poor 
and  unknown  until  His  thirtieth  year,  when  He  began  to  teach ; 
only  creating  a  ripple  on  the  surface  of  His  nation’s  life;  with 
friends  recruited  chiefly  among  the  humble,  the  ignorant,  the 


TO  6 


Jesus ’  Idea 


outcast,  or  at  most  among  the  middle  class,  and  arousing  ani¬ 
mosity  everywhere,  soon  or  late,  instead  of  making  friends, 
Jesus  appeared  a  poor  advocate  of  any  cause,  especially  of  one 
so  important  as  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Finally,  with  the  Cross, 
it  looked,  indeed,  as  though  the  fiasco  was  ended.  Yet  there 
soon  followed  the  comparatively  rapid  spread  of  Christianity 
throughout  the  then  known  world,  and  the  greatness  of  the 
results  achieved,  human  society  being  affected  at  well-nigh  every 
point,  and  conditioned  in  its  every  aspect.  This,  however,  is  the 
parable  of  the  mustard-seed.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  one  life 
— and  that  a  seemingly  insignificant  one — develops  into  a  result 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  small  beginning. 

Thus,  Jesus’  sole  purpose  in  this  parable  was  to  indicate 
that  the  beginning  of  the  Kingdom,  contrary  to  all  Jewish 
expectation,  would  be  insignificant  and  unpromising;  that,  not¬ 
withstanding  this,  the  Kingdom  would  develop  according  to  its 
own  inherent  method,  and  would  be  ultimately  crowned  with 
a  magnificent  consummation,  ever  more  and  more  inducing  men 
to  seek  its  salutary  rest,  shelter  and  sustenance.  The  wide, 
extending  branches  of  the  Mustard  Tree  would  be  understood 
in  this  sense,  in  view  of  the  similar  use  of  the  Old  Testament 
(Ezek.  17  :  22-24)  • 

Again,  however,  Jesus  found  it  necessary  to  oppose  a  promi¬ 
nent  feature  of  the  current  Jewish  conception.  According  to  the 
thought  of  His  day,  the  Kingdom  would  be  developed  by 
external  means.  The  method  would  be  from  the  outward  to 
the  inward.  At  the  point  of  the  sword,  for  instance,  God’s  law 
was  to  be  written  upon  the  hearts  of  the  Gentile  world. 
Through  ceremonialism  and  an  elaborate  cultus,  even  the  Jew 
was  to  be  made  inwardly  righteous.  This  conception  Jesus  abso¬ 
lutely  and  unhesitatingly  reversed.  “And  again  he  said,  Where- 
unto  shall  I  liken  the  Kingdom  of  God?  It  is  like  leaven,  which 
a  woman  took  and  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal  till  the  whole 
was  leavened”  (St.  Lu.  13:20-21;  St.  Mt.  13:33). 

Leaven  is  used  here  by  Jesus  to  symbolize  “the  unseen  influ¬ 
ence  and  penetrating  power  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.”  This 
use  of  the  word,  however,  is  somewhat  singular,  inasmuch  as 
in  almost  all  other  New  Testament  passages  leaven  is  used  in 
an  evil  sense.  The  words  of  Plutarch,  indeed,  reveal  the  popu¬ 
lar  idea  of  leaven  in  the  Ancient  world.  “Now  leaven  is  itself 


The  Kingdom’ s  Method  of  Development  107 


the  offspring  of  corruption,  and  corrupts  the  mass  of  dough  with 
which  it  has  been  mixed.”  Jesus,  Himself,  also  warned  the  dis¬ 
ciples  on  one  occasion  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  (St.  Mt.  16:  6-12),  and  of  Herod 
(St.  Mk.  8:15).  The  word  is  also  used  by  St.  Paul  in 
Gal.  3:9,  and  1st  Cor.  5:6-8,  of  bad  qualities  which  are  to 
be  avoided.  “Purge  out,  therefore,  the  old  leaven,  that  ye  may 
be  a  new  lump.”  By  rabbinical  writers  the  word  was  also  used 
in  much  the  same  way.  “Rabbi  Alexander,  when  he  had  finished 
his  prayers,  said:  Lord  of  the  universe,  it  is  clearly  manifest 
before  thee  that  it  is  our  will  to  do  thy  will;  What  hinders 
that  we  do  not  thy  will?  The  leaven  which  is  in  the  dough,” 
i.e.,  “the  evil  impulse  which  is  in  the  heart.”  This  constant 
use  of  “leaven”  in  an  evil  sense  has  led  some  to  insist  upon 
attaching  a  bad  signification  to  the  word  as  used  here  by  Jesus. 
They  make  it  prophetic,  for  instance,  “of  the  heresies  and  cor¬ 
ruption  which  should  mingle  with  and  adulterate  the  pure  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Gospel.”  Jesus,  however,  distinctly  says  that  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  leaven :  not  that  there  are  pernicious 
tendencies  within  the  Kingdom  which  act  like  leaven. 

This  analogy,  indeed,  Jesus  adopted  most  fittingly  because  it 
disclosed  another  distinctive  element  in  His  conception  of  the 
Kingdom.  He  was  not  busied  with  the  good  or  evil  character  of 
leaven,  but  with  its  peculiar ,  intensive,  energizing ,  and  perme¬ 
ating  power.  Leaven  illustrated,  in  His  thought,  the  mysterious 
influence  to  be  exerted  by  the  Kingdom  of  God  on  that  with 
which  it  should  come  in  contact.  Once  introduced  into  the 
world,  although  trivial  and  hidden,  the  Kingdom  would  work 
from  within,  and  with  silent  operation,  yet  none  the  less  ef¬ 
fectively.  This  fact  is  well  illustrated  in  the  early  history  of 
Christianity.  Obscure,  unknown  to  the  mass  of  men,  and  well- 
nigh  unmentioned  by  secular  writers,  but  imbedded  in  the  heart 
of  human  society,  Christianity  did  its  effective  and  quiet  work, 
conditioning  and  transforming,  until  even  Imperial  Rome  was 
compelled  to  reckon  with  it  by  alliance  in  the  hope  of  saving 
her  tottering  sovereignty.  The  Kingdom  was  gradually  leaven¬ 
ing  the  whole  lump. 

The  individual  life  itself  is  also  leavened  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner.  The  end  is  not  attained  at  once.  The  idea  of  the  sover¬ 
eignty  of  God  is  introduced  into  the  mind,  and  accepted  by 


io8 


Jesus’  Idea 


the  heart,  and  lies  there  unseen,  but  not  inactive.  Its  ener¬ 
gizing  power  is  quietly  affecting  the  whole  man,  until  the  entire 
life  shall  be  leavened  for  God  and  for  Christ.  A  little  lodg¬ 
ment  affects  at  first  a  part,  and  gradually  the  whole.  A  little 
idea  finds  entrance,  and  causes  the  reconstruction  of  a  system 
of  both  thought  and  conduct. 

Much,  indeed,  has  been  accomplished  in  the  world  through 
this  leavening  process  of  the  Kingdom — how  much  only  few 
begin  to  realize;  but  much  remains  to  be  accomplished.  May 
we  not  find  hope  that  it  will  be  accomplished  in  the  words,  “till 
the  whole  is  leavened”?  Perhaps  these  words  are  Jesus’  proph¬ 
ecy  of  the  ultimate  submission  of  humanity  to  God.  Who 
knows?  At  least  the  achievements  of  the  leaven  in  the  past 
are  the  open  prophecy  of  still  greater  triumphs  in  the  future. 

It  is  now  becoming  more  and  more  apparent  how  greatly 
Jesus’  ideal  of  the  Kingdom  differed  from  the  popular  ideal. 
The  Jews,  in  fact,  were  satisfied  with  their  conception  of  a 
temporal  Kingdom,  founded  by  force,  and  suddenly  triumphant. 
Jesus  could  entertain  only  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  Kingdom, 
growing  quietly,  and  in  an  orderly  manner,  from  most  insignifi¬ 
cant  beginnings  to  large  proportions,  and  in  its  development, 
by  its  peculiar  and  intrinsic  properties,  transforming  everything 
with  which  it  should  come  in  contact.  This  method  of  devel¬ 
opment,  however,  was  the  inevitable  and  the  logical  outcome 
of  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  determined  upon  by  Jesus  in  the 
Temptation.  A  spiritual  sovereignty  over  the  heart  of  man 
must  be  a  gradual  development. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  WORLD’S,  RECEPTION  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

In  the  parables  which  we  have  just  studied  Jesus  viewed 
the  growth  of  the  Kingdom  from  the  absolute  standpoint.  He 
considered  the  normal  working  of  the  Kingdom  and  of  the 
human  heart.  The  picture  was  of  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom, 
all  things  being  equal.  The  parables  are  parables  of  undaunted 
optimism;  they  seem  to  prophesy  unconditional  success.  But 
in  this  world  all  things  are  not  equal.  Had  Jesus  stopped  with 
these  illustrations,  His  action  would  have  been  most  unjusti¬ 
fiable.  Indeed,  the  facts  of  life  and  of  experience  do  not  sanc¬ 
tion  a  vision  of  such  roseate  hue.  Jesus,  however,  did  not  arrest 
the  progress  of  His  thought  with  these  parables.  The  truth  of 
the  seed,  the  mustard  seed,  and  the  leaven,  is  rounded  out  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Parables  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,  The 
Marriage  of  the  King’s  Son,  The  Barren  Fig  Tree,  the  Sower, 
the  Two  Sons,  and  the  Children  Playing  in  the  Market  Place. 
In  these  the  development  of  the  Kingdom  is  considered  from 
the  relative  standpoint.  The  freedom  of  the  human  will  is 
treated  of  as  conditioning  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom.  The 
concrete  completes  and  modifies  the  abstract. 

Jesus,  indeed,  in  speaking  of  the  world’s  reception  of  the 
Kingdom,  considered  its  acceptance  from  three  standpoints:  the 
national,  the  individual,  and  the  class.  His  teaching  revealed 
clearly  how  the  sovereignty  of  God,  which  He  sought  to  estab¬ 
lish,  would  be  received  by  His  nation  in  His  own  time,  and  by 
individuals  and  certain  classes  in  all  times. 

The  nationality  of  Jesus,  and  His  love  alike,  caused  Him 
to  be  interested  primarily  in  the  reception  which  His  own  nation 
would  accord  to  the  Kingdom  of  God.  As  the  Chosen  People, 
they  were  the  natural  heirs  of  the  Kingdom,  and  at  the  outset 
of  His  career  Jesus  probably  expected  great  things  of  them. 
The  lofty  mind  and  the  loving  heart,  indeed,  always  generate 

109 


I  10 


Jesus ’  Idea 


confidence.  For  three  years  He  waited  hopefully  to  see  what 
they  would  do,  and  while  disquieting  intimations  arose  from 
time  to  time,  it  is  only  toward  the  close  of  His  ministry  that 
He  indicates  openly  the  rejection  of  the  Kingdom  by  the  Jews. 
On  the  last  Tuesday  of  His  earthly  life,  Jesus  expresses  Him¬ 
self  fully  upon  this  point.  Only  a  day  or  two  before,  He  had 
entered  into  the  Holy  City,  riding  upon  an  ass,  a  colt,  the  foal 
of  an  ass.  This  was  His  public  acknowledgment  of  His  Mes- 
siahship,  in  accordance  with  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  (Zech. 
9:9)  and  the  shouting  multitude  with  their  Messianic  acclaim 
understood  well  the  significance  of  the  act.  Yet,  despite  teach¬ 
ing,  miracle,  act,  the  leaders  of  the  nation  would  not  receive 
Him.  His  public  acknowledgment  of  His  Messiahship,  indeed, 
only  made  His  public  rejection  the  more  profound  and  bitter. 
On  the  day  of  His  entry  into  Jerusalem  the  Pharisees  had  asked 
by  what  authority  He  did  these  things.  He  confuted  them 
by  a  similar  question  as  to  the  authority  of  John  the  Baptist. 
When  they  were  unable  to  answer,  and  thus  revealed  their 
patent  insincerity,  in  consequence,  there  came  from  the  very 
depths  of  the  outraged  soul  of  Jesus  several  parables,  two  of 
which  are  the  most  ominous  commentary  upon  Jewish  na¬ 
tional  history  conceivable:  the  parables  of  the  Wicked  Hus¬ 
bandmen  and  the  Marriage  of  the  King’s  Son,  or,  as  it  is 
sometimes  called,  the  Wedding  Garment.1 

These  parables  were  born  of  the  travail  of  a  human  soul,  for 
Jesus  was  first,  last,  and  always,  a  patriot  and  devoted  to 
His  race.  His  patriotism,  however,  was  not  blindness  to  His 
country’s  faults.  On  the  contrary,  His  consciousness  of  His 
countrymen’s  shortcomings  was  keen  and  anguishing  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  greatness  of  the  love  He  bore  them.  It  is 
this  patriotism,  stung  to  the  quick,  that  speaks  in  these  parables.2 

1  The  idea  of  the  garment,  however,  is  subsidiary  to  the  main 
idea  of  the  parable,  and  certainly  should  not  give  name  to  the 
whole. 

2 The  first  of  these  parables  is  as  follows:  “Hear  another  parable: 
There  was  a  certain  householder,  which  planted  a  vineyard,  and 
hedged  it  round  about,  and  digged  a  winepress  in  it,  and  built  a 
tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  a  far  country: 
And  when  the  time  of  the  fruit  drew  near,  he  sent  his  servants  to 
the  husbandmen,  that  they  might  receive  the  fruits  of  it.  And  the 
husbandmen  took  his  servants,  and  beat  one,  and  killed  another,  and 


The  World' s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom 


1 1 1 


The  interpretation  of  the  first  of  these  parables  is  as  follows. 
The  vineyard  represented  the  Chosen  People.  The  husbandmen 
were  the  leaders  to  whom  God  from  time  to  time  had  en¬ 
trusted  the  tutelage  of  the  nation.  Planted  for  the  cultivation 
of  righteousness  and  truth,  prophet  after  prophet  had  been  sent 
to  demand  the  vintage.  These  are  the  servants,  more  cor¬ 
rectly,  the  slaves  of  the  story.  And  how  splendid  is  the 
word!  The  prophet,  the  slave  of  God — owned,  body,  mind, 
and  soul;  no  will  of  his  own — none  but  his  master’s.  These, 
however,  have  been  rejected,  abused  again  and  again,  and 
sometimes  killed.  At  last  the  only  Son,  the  heir,  is  sent.  He, 
of  course,  was  Jesus,  and  the  fruit  which  He  demanded  was 
acceptance  of  the  Kingdom.  But  the  husbandmen’s  greed 
for  the  inheritance  led  them  to  reject  and  even  to  kill  the 
Son,  the  last  and  the  chief  of  God’s  messengers.  The  “hedge” 

stoned  another.  Again  he  sent  other  servants  more  than  the  first : 
and  they  did  unto  them  likewise.  But  last  of  all  he  sent  unto  them 
his  son,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my  son.  But  when  the  hus¬ 
bandmen  saw  the  son,  they  said  among  themselves,  This  is  the  heir ; 
come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  let  us  seize  on  his  inheritance.  And  they 
caught  him,  and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard,  and  slew  him.  When 
the  lord  therefore  of  the  vineyard  cometh,  what  will  he  do  unto 
those  husbandmen?  They  say  unto  him,  He  will  miserably  destroy 
those  wicked  men,  and  will  let  out  his  vineyard  to  other  husband¬ 
men,  which  shall  render  him  the  fruits  in  their  seasons.  Jesus  saith 
unto  them,  Did  ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures,  The  stone  which 
the  builders  rejected,  the  same  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner: 
this  is  the  Lord’s  doing,  and  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes?  There¬ 
fore  say  I  unto  you,  The  Kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you, 
and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.  And  who¬ 
soever  shall  fall  on  this  stone  shall  be  broken,  but  on  whomsoever 
it  shall  fall,  it  will  grind  him  to  powder.  And  when  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees  had  heard  his  parables,  they  perceived  that  He  spake 
of  them.  And  when  they  sought  to  lay  hands  on  Him,  they  feared 
the  multitude,  because  they  took  him  for  a  prophet”  (St.  Mt.  21 : 33- 
46).  This  parable  was  founded  probably  upon  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Isaiah,  in  which  the  prophet  compares  Israel  as  a  nation  to  a  vine¬ 
yard  :  “For  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  the  House  of 
Israel,  and  the  men  of  Judah,  his  pleasant  plant;  and  he  looked  for 
judgment,  but  beheld  oppression;  for  righteousness,  but  beheld  a 
cry”  (Isa.  5:7).  Some  of  the  phrases,  indeed,  which  were  used  by 
Jesus,  were  reproduced  from  this  account.  Hence  the  very  fa¬ 
miliarity  of  His  hearers  with  the  illustration  probably  aroused  a 
keen  interest  and  desire  to  fathom  the  Master’s  meaning.  This, 
however,  was  not  difficult,  for  the  parable  is  Jesus’  sad  commentary 
upon  Jewish  history. 


I  12 


Jesus’  Idea 


of  the  parable  is  thought  by  some  to  indicate  the  Law;  the 
wine  vat,  the  altar,  and  the  tower,  the  temple.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  is  a  matter  of  minor  importance.  The  central  truth  of 
the  parable  is  the  right  of  God  to  demand  from  Israel  the  fruit 
of  holiness  and  the  acceptance  of  His  sovereignty,  and  the  duty 
incumbent  upon  Israel  throughout  her  entire  history  to  bear 
this  fruit.  Yet  the  nation  had  failed  signally. 

Consequently,  Jesus  asked,  “what  will  become  of  those  hus¬ 
bandmen  ?”  The  Pharisees  reply,  according  to  St.  Matthew 
(in  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  12:1-12  and  20:9-18,  Jesus  answers), 
that  the  Lord  will  come  and  destroy  those  murderers.  His 
hearers,  indeed,  answer  aright;  they  unconsciously  pronounce 
their  own  condemnation  to  their  subsequent  confusion  and 
shame.  Jesus,  however,  makes  the  application  of  the  parable 
more  pointed.  He  compares  himself  to  the  stone  which  is 
rejected  by  the  builders,  but  which  nevertheless  becomes  the 
corner  stone.  This  is  a  reference  to  Psalm  118:22,  which 
makes  Israel,  the  nation  despised  and  rejected  by  the  Gentiles, 
the  very  cornerstone  of  God’s  relations  with  the  world.  The 
words,  however,  had  been  applied  in  later  times  to  the  Messiah 
by  the  Rabbis,  hence  Jesus’  application  of  them  to  Himself. 
Further,  in  view  of  the  nation’s  repeated  rejection  of  the 
advances  of  God  and  its  treatment  of  those  through  whom 
they  were  made,  especially  its  murder  of  the  Son  and  Heir, 
dire  punishment  was  also  to  be  administered.  This  was  actu¬ 
ally  accomplished  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  overthrow 
of  the  leaders  of  the  theocracy,  and  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  state 
in  A.  D.  70.  The  Kingdom  also  would  be  given  to  others — 
“to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.”  Not,  it  is 
apparent,  to  the  Gentiles  as  a  whole,  or  to  any  specific  nation¬ 
ality,  but  to  a  people  gathered  from  many  nations,  to  an 
eclectic  nation, — all  the  subjects  of  the  true  Kingdom  of  God. 
Further,  this  nation  is  represented  as  one  already  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  of  the  Kingdom,  i.  e.,  possessing  the  char¬ 
acteristics  indicated  in  the  Beatitudes.  Here  we  see  again  the 
sublime  confidence  expressed  in  the  parable  of  the  Seed  Growing 
Secretly.  If  Jewish  hearts  were  hardened  against  the  reception 
of  the  seed,  there  were  at  least  human  hearts  elsewhere  which 
would  prove  congenial  soil  for  the  sowing  of  God’s  truth. 
Jesus,  in  fact,  had  already  seen  foregleams  of  this  “nation” 


The  World's  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  113 


in  the  Roman  centurion  at  Capernaum,  at  whose  faith  He  ex¬ 
claimed,  “I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no  not  in  Israel,” 
(St.  Luke  7:1-11),  and  in  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman,  and 
the  Samaritans.  Such  a  prophecy  as  this  was  certainly  madden¬ 
ing  to  the  Jews,  and  we  read:  “When  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  had  heard  His  parables,  they  perceived  that  he 
spake  of  them.”  They  feared,  however,  to  prove  the  absolute 
truthfulness  of  His  portrayal  by  laying  hands  on  Him  then, 
because  the  multitude  took  Him  for  a  prophet. 

Jesus,  however,  speaks  another  parable.1  He  voices  the 
same  general  truth,  but  looks  at  the  subject  from  a  different 
standpoint.  The  thought  now  is  not  primarily  of  right  and 
obligation,  but  of  privilege  and  opportunity.  The  parable  is 
that  of  the  Marriage  Feast.2  The  details  of  this  story  are 

1  This  parable  is  given  more  fully  in  St.  Matthew  22:1-14  than  in 
St.  Mark,  or  St.  Luke  14:16-24,  and  the  context  is  different.  Given 
by  St.  Matthew  immediately  after  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Hus¬ 
bandmen,  it  clinches  the  truth  enunciated  there.  This  variance  in 
context  has  given  rise  to  various  suppositions.  Some  think  the 
version  of  St.  Luke  an  imperfect  one,  which  found  its  way  into 
some  early  document  used  by  him.  Others  maintain  that  his  version 
is  the  original,  and  that  in  St.  Matthew  it  is  combined  with  another. 
This,  however,  is  speculation.  Its  idea  and  position  here  are  emi¬ 
nently  logical.  It  is,  in  fact,  complementary  to  the  preceding  parable. 
The  parable  itself  may  have  been  suggested  by  Zephaniah  1  \J,  8. 

2  “And  Jesus  answered  and  spake  unto  them  again  by  parables, 
and  said,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  certain  king,  which 
made  a  marriage  for  his  son,  And  sent  forth  his  servants  to  call 
them  that  were  bidden  to  the  wedding :  and  they  would  not  come. 
Again,  he  sent  forth  other  servants,  saying,  Tell  them  which  are 
bidden,  Behold  I  have  prepared  my  dinner :  my  oxen  and  my  fat- 
lings  are  killed,  and  all  things  are  ready :  come  unto  the  marriage. 
But  they  made  light  of  it  and  went  their  ways,  one  to  his  farm, 
another  to  his  merchandise :  And  the  remnant  took  his  servants,  and 
entreated  them  spitefully  and  slew  them.  But  when  the  king  heard 
thereof,  he  was  wroth:  And  he  sent  forth  his  armies,  and  destroyed 
those  murderers,  and  burned  up  their  city.  Then  saith  he  to  his 
servants,  The  wedding  is  ready,  but  they  which  were  bidden  were 
not  worthy.  Go  ye  therefore  into  the  highways,  and  as  many  as 
ye  shall  find,  bid  to  the  marriage.  So  those  servants  went  out  into 
the  highways,  and  gathered  together  all  as  many  as  they  found,  both 
bad  and  good :  and  the  wedding  was  furnished  with  guests.  And 
when  the  king  came  in  to  see  the  guests,  he  saw  there  a  man  which 
had  not  on  a  wedding  garment;  And  he  saith  unto  him,  Friend, 
how  earnest  thou  in  hither  not  having  a  wedding  garment?  And  he 
was  speechless.  Then  said  the  king  to  the  servants,  Bind  him  hand 


Jesus ’  Idea 


114 

easily  identified.  The  circumstances  of  its  delivery  make  clear 
the  content.  God  is  the  King;  Jesus  is  the  groom;  His 
marriage  is  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom.  The  servants, 
or  slaves,  are  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus  perhaps,  and  the  disciples, 
who,  now  that  the  marriage  is  ready,  in  accordance  with  the 
Oriental  custom  summoned  those  who  had  been  invited  pre¬ 
viously.  The  invited,  of  course,  are  the  Jews.  Some — the 
majority  (vs.  5) — pay  no  attention  whatever  to  the  call;  others 
— the  minority  (vs.  6) — are  bitter,  manifesting  open  hostility 
and  slaying  the  servants.  In  consequence  the  King  is  angry 
and  sends  forth  his  army,  destroying  the  murderers  and  burn¬ 
ing  their  city.  This  language  again  is  singularly  descriptive 
of  the  fate  which  overtook  the  Jews  in  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70. 

This,  however,  was  not  the  end  of  the  matter.  Pearls 
had  been  cast  before  swine;  that  which  was  holy  had  been 
given  to  dogs.  The  invited  were  not  worthy,  so  the  servants 
were  sent  outside  the  city  into  the  cross-roads  (such  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word)  where  people  were  wont  to  congregate, 
with  directions  to  summon  every  one  to  the  wedding — good 
and  bad  alike.  The  intent  here  is  apparent.  The  King¬ 
dom,  or  sovereignty  of  God,  had  come  near.  Those  who  had 
been  invited,  and  were  expected  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
privilege — the  Chosen  People — will  not  do  so.  Hence  the 
Gentiles,  and  according  to  St.  Luke’s  version  of  the  parable, 
the  poor  and  the  maimed,  the  despised  and  the  overlooked  in 
Israel,  will  be  summoned  to  the  Feast.  All  will  be  called, 
but  only  those  who  are  qualified  for  admission  will  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  enter.  This  is  the  thought  suggested  by  the  wedding 
garment.  While  those  venturesome  enough  to  enter  without 
suitable  attire — righteousness  of  mind  and  heart — will  be  cast 
out  amid  the  wailing  of  despair  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth  in 
hopeless  impotency.  Many,  indeed,  will  be  called,  but  few 
chosen.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  also,  how  closely  the  proclama¬ 
tion  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  Gentiles  is  associated  here  by 
Jesus  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

No  more  succinct  resume  of  Jewish  history  could  have  been 

and  foot,  and  take  him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer  darkness; 
there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  For  many  are  called, 
but  few  are  chosen.” 


The  World's  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  1 1 5 


given  than  that  which  is  offered  in  these  parables.  Chiefly 
of  historical  interest,  they  possess,  however,  an  eternal  signifi¬ 
cance.  The  illustration  is  historical,  but  the  principle  is  eternal. 
“Every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  shall  be  hewn 
down  and  cast  into  the  fire.”  Duty  and  privilege  cannot 
be  trifled  with  on  pain  of  punishment  dire  and  certain.  This 
is  the  saddening  burden  of  the  parable;  the  Jews  are  the  ob¬ 
ject  lesson.  The  Jew,  indeed,  is  the  tragedy  of  history. 

“Though  the  mills  of  God  grind  slowly, 

Yet  He  grinds  exceeding  small, 

Though  in  patience  long  He  waiteth, 

With  exactness  grinds  He  all.”  1 

Thus  Jesus,  toward  the  close  of  His  life,  showed  that  He  was 
well  aware  that  the  Chosen  People  would  prove  recreant 
to  their  trust,  and  unmindful  of  their  privilege  to  the  end.  The 
proof  lies  in  these  parables  of  doom,  which  are  at  once 
the  nation’s  death  note  and  the  Kingdom’s  paean  of  vic¬ 
tory. 

Jesus,  however,  did  not  conceive  of  the  acceptance  of  the 
Kingdom  in  terms  of  nationality  alone.  He  also  spoke  of  it 
in  terms  of  individuality.  This,  in  fact,  He  was  compelled 
to  do  in  view  of  His  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as  primarily 
personal  and  spiritual.  The  parable  of  the  Sower  is  pre¬ 
eminently  the  parable  of  individuality.2  It  is  really  a  psycho¬ 
logical  study.  Its  position  is  unique,  and  its  content  makes  it 

1  The  rejection  of  the  Kingdom  by  the  Jews  is  the  plaint  also  of 
the  parable  of  the  Barren  Fig  Tree  (St.  Mk.  n  120-25 ).  The  closing 
words  of  the  parable  of  the  Pounds  are  also  indicative  of  the  same 
truth :  “But  those  mine  enemies  which  would  not  that  I  should 
reign  over  them,  bring  hither,  and  slay  them  before  me”  (St.  Luke 
19:27). 

2  “And  he  spake  many  things  to  them  in  parables,  saying,  Behold 
a  sower  went  forth  to  sow;  And  when  he  sowed  some  seeds  fell 
by  the  wayside,  and  the  fowls  came  and  devoured  them  up :  Some 
fell  upon  stony  places,  where  they  had  not  much  earth:  and  forth¬ 
with  they  sprung  up,  because  they  had  no  deepness  of  earth :  And 
when  the  sun  was  up  they  were  scorched;  and  because  they  had 
no  root,  they  withered  away.  And  some  fell  among  thorns;  and 
the  thorns  sprung  up  and  choked  them:  But  others  fell  into  good 
ground,  and  brought  forth  fruit,  some  an  hundredfold,  some  sixty¬ 
fold,  some  thirtyfold.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear.”  (St. 
Matthew  i3:3-9cf.,  St.  Mk.  4:3-20,  St.  Lu.  8:4-15.) 


Jesus’  Idea 


1 1 6 

the  pivotal  parable.  With  its  advent,  the  national  stage  of  the 
Kingdom  has  passed,  and  the  individual,  henceforth,  is  the 
unit  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  parable,  in  fact,  was  the 
first  to  be  spoken  by  Jesus,  and  its  bearing  upon  all  subsequent 
parables  is  evident  from  His  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
disciples:  “Know  ye  not  this  parable?  and  how  then  will  ye 
know  all  parables ?”  (St.  Mk.  4:13).  While  this  illustration 
is  pastoral  in  its  simplicity,  each  Evangelist  seems  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  the  story,  inasmuch  as  each  one  repre¬ 
sents  Jesus  as  saying  at  the  close:  “He  that  hath  ears  to  hear, 
let  him  hear.”  Indeed,  this  parable  is  Jesus’  nearest  approxima¬ 
tion  to  a  definition  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  In  it  He  both 
states  what  the  Kingdom  is,  and  gives  its  vicissitudes  of  growth. 
Elsewhere,  He  makes  many  allusions  to  it,  and  gives  partial  il¬ 
lustrations  of  it,  but  here  He  is  comprehensive  and  thorough ; 
He  goes  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter.  It  was  very  important, 
indeed,  that  Ele  should  do  so ;  for  the  disciples,  as  the  future  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  the  Kingdom,  must  understand  its  pregnant 
meaning,  and  failure  to  understand  this  parable  would  mean 
failure  to  understand  all  parables.  Recognizing  this,  Jesus 
departs  from  His  usual  custom  and  becomes,  in  this  instance, 
the  interpreter  of  His  own  parable.1 

Before  we  note  the  interpretation  of  this  parable  let  us 
realize  that  nowhere  is  the  surpassing  intellectuality  of  Jesus 
more  clearly  revealed  than  in  the  parables.  Jesus  Christ  was 
an  intellectual  giant,  no  less  than  a  moral  giant.  His  intellect, 
indeed,  was  as  clear  as  crystal,  alert,  powerful,  commanding. 
This  characteristic  of  the  Christ  has  received  but  scant  ac- 

1  “Hear  ye  therefore  the  parable  of  the  sower.  When  anyone 
heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom,  and  understandeth  it  not,  then 
cometh  the  wicked  one,  and  catcheth  away  that  which  was  sown  in 
his  heart.  This  is  he  that  receiveth  seed  by  the  wayside.  But  he  that 
receiveth  the  seed  into  stony  places,  the  same  is  he  that  heareth  the 
word,  and  anon  with  joy  receiveth  it:  Yet  hath  he  not  root  in  him¬ 
self,  but  dureth  for  awhile :  for  when  tribulation  or  persecution 
ariseth  because  of  the  word,  by  and  by  he  is  offended.  He  also  that 
receiveth  seed  among  the  thorns  is  he  that  heareth  the  word ;  and 
the  care  of  this  world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  choke  the 
word,  and  he  becometh  unfruitful.  But  he  that  receiveth  seed  into 
the  good  ground  is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  understandeth  it ; 
which  also  beareth  fruit,  and  bringeth  forth,  some  an  hundredfold, 
some  sixty,  some  thirty.”  (St.  Matthew  13:  18-23). 


The  World’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  117 


knowledgment.  It  has  been  almost  lost  sight  of  in  the  dazzling 
splendor  of  His  moral  vision.  The  painters  and  sculptors 
of  all  ages  have  made  us  familiar  with  a  Christ  whose  face 
and  form  reveal  the  gentler  qualities  of  humanity.  They  have 
been  strikingly  deficient  in  portraying  the  virility,  the  manliness, 
and  the  intellectuality  of  the  Christ.  Whether  this  can  be  done 
may  be  a  matter  of  debate,  but  certainly  the  Christ  of  Art  is  not 
the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  probable  that  the 
intellectuality  of  Jesus,  not  to  speak  of  His  spirituality,  defies 
portrayal.  However  this  may  be,  every  student  of  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  should  be  alive  to  the  keen  intellectuality  which 
He  exhibited  from  the  first  in  a  marvelous  mastery  over  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  in  a  no 
less  marvelous  ability  in  enunciating  them.  This  is  singularly 
exemplified  in  the  first  of  His  parables. 

“The  sower  soweth  the  word,”  says  Jesus,  and  the  word 
sown  is  “the  word  of  the  kingdom.”  Now  words  are  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  ideas,  and  the  idea,  in  this  case,  is  the  idea  of  God 
and  His  rule.  It  is,  in  brief,  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom. 
(Let  the  reader  consult  St.  Matthew  4:23;  24:14;  Acts  1:3; 
28:31).  The  thought,  indeed,  in  this  parable  constituted  the 
mystery  or  hidden  truth  of  the  Kingdom.  Awaiting  a  perfect 
Kingdom  of  God,  ushered  in  by  a  tour-de-force,  the  Jews  learn 
that  the  Kingdom  is  akin  to  an  idea  sown  among  men,  and 
that  it  is  subject  to  all  the  vicissitudes  of  planting  and  growth. 
It  was  exceedingly  difficult  for  the  disciples  to  grasp  this  teach- 
ing,  so  Jesus  reinforces  the  main  conception  of  the  parable  by 
its  details.  While  Chrysostom’s  canon  of  interpretation — 
“Nor  is  it  necessary  to  waste  labor  by  way  of  explanation 
over  all  matters  in  the  parables,  but  having  learned  the  de¬ 
sign  for  which  it  was  constructed,  to  get  possession  of  that, 
and  not  to  busy  one  self  with  anything  further” — is  usually  to 
be  followed,  this  parable  is  an  exception  to  the  rule.  In  this 
case,  the  details  are  of  primary  importance.  But  what  is  the 
significance  of  the  various  details  ? 

The  seeds  which  fall  on  a  hard,  trodden  path,  and  lying 
upon  the  surface  are  soon  carried  away,  are  typical  of  those 
persons  who  hear  the  message  of  the  Kingdom,  but  do  not 
understand  it.  They  are  men  without  spiritual  receptivity. 
The  condition  is  abnormal,  but  it  is  real.  Contact  with  life  has 


1 1 8 


Jesus'  Idea 


atrophied,  not  developed,  their  higher  susceptibilities.  The 
superinducing  causes  are  not  given  by  Jesus,  but  they  are 
many  and  as  effective  to-day  as  then.  And  what  is  the  re¬ 
sult?  That  which  cannot  penetrate  into  the  inner  life  but 
lies  upon  the  surface  of  the  heart,  extraneous  influences  soon 
remove.  This  detail  shows  also  that  the  foes  of  the  Kingdom 
are  not  only  within  the  man,  but  are  without  him  as  well. 
There  is  a  vast  environment  of  evil  which  militates  against 
the  Kingdom,  and  seeks  to  prevent  even  its  planting. 

There  is  also  the  stony  soil,  says  Jesus,  which  is  typical  of 
those  who  hear  the  message  of  the  Kingdom  and  “anon  with 
joy  receive  it.”  This  is  the  shallow,  the  volatile,  the  emotional 
type.  “Of  course,”  they  say,  “God  should  rule.”  But  they 
do  not  count  the  cost.  When  the  tribulation  which  ensues  upon 
any  honest  attempt  to  do  God’s  will  arises,  they  are  soon 
discouraged  and  rendered  lifeless.  This  class  is  always  the 
congenial  soil  of  revivalism.  Under  stress  of  appeal  and  excite¬ 
ment  religion  springs  into  existence,  and  as  easily  dies. 

But  again,  some  seed  falls  among  thorns.  Jesus’  masterly 
analysis  of  human  nature  is  strikingly  apparent  here.  The  soil 
is  propitious,  but  it  endeavors  to  grow  two  crops  at  the  same 
time.  The  old  story  of  God  and  Mammon.  The  cares  of  this 
world,  or  correctly  of  the  age,  are  said  to  choke  the  Kingdom. 
Something  more,  indeed,  than  positive  and  acknowledged 
sinfulness  wages  warfare  against  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The 
anxiety  of  men  in  regard  to  temporal  affairs  militates  against 
the  development  of  God’s  rule.  This  thought,  in  fact,  was 
ever  present  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  We  meet  it  in  the  parable 
of  the  King’s  Supper,  and  of  The  Rich  Fool,  and  we  find  it 
elaborated  at  length  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Jesus, 
of  course,  did  not  discourage  thoughtful  provision  for  the 
present  and  the  future.  What  He  had  in  mind  was  that 
anxiety  which  finds  in  this  the  great  object  of  life  to  the  neglect 
of  the  life  of  God,  and  which  is  a  powerful  foe  of  the  King¬ 
dom  in  every  age. 

The  deceitfulness  of  riches,  however,  is  also  mentioned  as  a 
foe  of  the  Kingdom.  Wealth  seems  man’s  greatest  good.  Jesus, 
however,  warns  against  its  deceitfulness.  And  well  might  He  do 
so.  Wealthy  men  are  by  no  means  the  happiest  of  men.  The 
ability  to  enjoy  wealth  is  indeed  often  lost  in  the  shriveling 


The  World’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  119 


of  the  soul  attendant  upon  its  accumulation.  There  is,  also, 
the  disquieting  endeavor  to  increase  or  to  retain  the  possessions, 
the  haunting  fear  of  loss,  or  of  death,  or  even  of  enjoyment  at 
the  expense  of  spending.  There  is  the  surrounding  crowd  of 
sycophants  whose  patent  insincerity  casts  suspicion  on  all  one’s 
friends.  But  pre-eminently  are  riches  deceitful  in  that  they 
lead  to  the  placing  of  emphasis  upon  what  a  man  has ,  rather 
than  upon  what  a  man  is.  They  foster  the  fearful  lie  that 
happiness  consists  in  having  rather  than  in  being ,  and  thus 
blind  to  life’s  true  values.  They  are  often  productive  of 
moral  bankruptcy.  Acting  in  concert  with  man’s  love  of 
pleasure  and  the  lust  for  other  things  which  lies  buried  in  the 
human  heart,  the  cares  of  life  and  the  deceitfulness  of  money 
too  frequently  spring  up  to  throttle  the  idea  that  God  should 
rule;  hence  thousands  of  lives  become  unfruitful. 

Some  seed,  however,  falls  into  good  ground,  and  this  good 
soil  bears  fruit,  some  an  hundredfold,  some  sixty,  some  thirty. 
One  fourth  of  the  sowing,  at  least,  is  not  in  vain.  Here  again  is 
the  prophetic  doctrine  of  the  remnant.  Is  the  percentage  of 
fruit-bearers  always  only  one  to  three?  If  so,  slender  indeed  is 
the  stream  of  salvation.  But  narrow  is  the  way  that  leadeth 
unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it.  However  this  may 
be,  it  is  noticeable  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  does  not  bear 
the  same  amount  of  fruit  in  every  life.  We  cannot  expect, 
therefore,  the  same  degree  of  Christianity  in  all  Christians: 
the  young  with  the  old,  the  well-trained  with  the  ill-trained,  the 
intelligent  with  the  illiterate.  The  fruitage  is  dependent  upon 
the  planting,  the  environment,  and  the  character  of  the  soil; 
some  is  rich,  some  is  mediocre,  some  is  comparatively  poor. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  the  parable  of  the  Sower.  While 
prophetic  of  the  future,  it  was  also  reminiscent  of  the  past. 
Jesus,  indeed,  had  already  witnessed  this  varying  reception  of 
the  Kingdom  on  the  part  of  individuals.  The  outcome  of  ex¬ 
perience,  the  parable  was  undoubtedly  spoken  in  mercy,  in  order 
that  the  disciples  might  understand  the  failure  of  much  of  their 
Master’s  sowing,  and  also  the  reception  which  awaited  the 
truth  when  sowm  by  them.  The  story,  indeed,  is  the  sad  com¬ 
fort  of  every  preacher  to-day,  and  the  ever-true  commentary 
upon  human  nature. 

Jesus,  however,  spoke  also  of  the  attitude  of  certain  classes 


120 


Jesus 1  Idea 


toward  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  parable  of  the  Children 
Playing  in  the  Market-place  is  Jesus’  criticism  of  a  class,  as 
well  as  of  a  people  (St.  Luke  7:31-35).  “But  whereunto  shall 
I  liken  this  generation?  It  is  like  unto  children  sitting  in  the 
markets,  and  calling  unto  their  fellows,  And  saying,  We  have 
piped  unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  danced;  we  have  mourned 
unto  you,  and  ye  have  not  lamented.  For  John  came  neither 
eating  nor  drinking,  and  they  say,  He  hath  a  devil.  The 
Son  of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and  they  say,  Behold 
a  man  gluttonous  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and 
sinners.  But  wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children.  Then  began 
he  to  upbraid  the  cities  wherein  most  of  his  mighty  works  were 
done,  because  they  repented  not”  (St.  Matthew  11:16-20). 

The  meaning  of  this  parable  is  not  apparent  at  once;  it  opens 
to  view,  however,  upon  examination.  Jesus  finds  a  resem¬ 
blance  between  the  thoughtless,  frolicking  children  who  play 
in  the  market-place  and  reproach  their  disinterested  play¬ 
mates  for  responding  neither  to  their  mournful  nor  to  their 
merry  strains,  and  the  men  of  His  own  time.  Jesus  and 
John  the  Baptist  are  evidently  the  unwilling  playmates;  the 
men  of  that  generation  are  the  fault-finding  children.  Neither 
John  nor  Jesus  could  satisfy  the  people  of  their  time.  John,  the 
rugged,  unbending  prophet  of  the  wilderness,  was  too  austere, 
ascetic,  and  unsympathetic.  Although  attracted  for  a  time, 
an  ease-loving  age  soon  discarded  the  strenuous  prophet  of  the 
desert  (St.  John  5:35).  Then  came  Jesus.  He  was  a  decided 
contrast  to  John.  Yes;  but  He  was  too  unrestrained  and 
too  unconventional.  John  did  not  dance  to  their  music;  Jesus 
did  not  mourn  to  their  whims.  Hence  there  was  only  criticism 
and  abuse  from  their  countrymen.  As  a  result,  the  age,  in  the 
thought  of  Jesus,  was  as  superficial  as  childhood  at  play. 
Indeed,  the  men  of  His  generation  were  merely  players  at 
religion. 

The  age  was  dominated  by  the  Pharisees,  as  we  have  seen. 
Being  formalists,  and  content  with  the  husks  of  religion,  they 
became  inevitably  the  chief  opponents  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  who 
were  the  advocates  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  religion.  Because 
of  an  inveterate  tendency  to  live  on  the  surface,  and  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  external;  because  undisturbed  by  any  deep 
sense  of  the  inward  and  the  spiritual,  that  age  was  distinctly 


The  PForld’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  ill 


lacking  in  moral  earnestness.  John  and  Jesus  were  phenomena 
which  it  could  not  understand.  They  were  accordingly  dis¬ 
missed  summarily  with  the  characterization  of  one  as  a  devil, 
and  of  the  other,  as  “a  glutton  and  a  wine-bibber,  a  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners.”  It  is  always  so  easy  to  abuse  what 
we  do  not  understand. 

This  abuse,  however,  was  a  criticism  of  the  fault-finders 
rather  than  of  those  faulted.  Our  Lord  makes  this  apparent  in 
the  remark  which  concludes  the  parable.  Despite  Pharisaic 
sneer,  He  is  comforted  in  the  thought  that  “Wisdom  is  justified 
of  all  her  children.”  It  was  true  that  neither  the  Pharisees, 
nor  their  generation,  appreciated  the  Baptist  nor  Jesus.  In 
their  blind  self-sufficiency,  they  could  dismiss  both  with  a  super¬ 
ficial  criticism,  but  fortunately  there  were  some  wise  enough 
to  justify  the  wisdom  of  Jesus  and  of  John,  as  it  was  exemplified 
in  their  varying  conduct.  These,  of  course,  are  the  children 
of  wisdom. 

Both  of  the  criticised  had  acted,  indeed,  in  accordance  with 
a  true  principle  and  a  true  conception  of  their  era,  although 
their  lassez-faire  generation  had  not  the  moral  depth  to  see 
it.  John,  born  in  the  priestly  course,  and  to  the  priestly  office, 
in  reaction  against  his  time,  refused  the  honors  and  emoluments 
of  his  hereditary  calling,  and,  despite  birth  and  inheritance, 
sought  the  solitude  of  the  wilderness  to  hear  amidst  its  undis¬ 
turbed  stillness  the  voice  of  God,  which  his  age  was  stifling. 
There  he  caught  the  accents  of  reality,  and  emerging  to  the 
banks  of  the  Jordan,  he  translated  into  speech,  the  intense 
convictions  born  of  that  silence.  In  view  of  the  approaching 
Kingdom,  and  the  needful  preparation  therefor,  the  character 
and  the  career  of  John  were  eminently  fitting.  Asceticism, 
sternness,  denunciation,  moral  intensity,  the  age  demanded. 
John  met  the  demand  admirably.  He  was  the  embodiment  of 
the  highest  in  his  time ;  the  flower  of  his  age.  On  the  other 
hand,  Jesus,  the  founder  of  the  Kingdom,  conscious  of  God’s 
rule  and  its  blessing  of  redemption  and  release,  aware  of  the 
joy  and  peace  in  His  own  life,  and  of  the  bliss  which  awaited 
a  lost  world,  shunned  no  man,  but  sought  all  men  in  love.  His 
manifest  duty  was  to  be  in  the  world,  and  for  the  world,  but 
not  of  the  world. 

Thus  Jesus  indicated  by  this  parable  that  the  Pharisees,  and 


122 


Jesus ’  Idea 


the  men  of  His  generation,  would  not  receive  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  This,  however,  is  equally  true  of  the  same  class  in  every 
age.  The  Pharisees,  unfortunately,  cannot  be  restricted  to  the 
time  of  Christ.  Their  lineal  descendants  are  multitudinous; 
the  fecundity  of  the  class  is  marvelous.  The  world,  in 
fact,  is  full  of  religious  dilettantes,  of  players  at  religion.  Our 
Lord  designated  these  repeatedly  as  hypocrites ;  and  the  title 
was  indeed  deserved.  The  word  originally  signified  an  actor — 
one  who  spoke  through  a  mask,  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  ancient  stage.  Such,  indeed,  is  the  hypocrite  throughout 
all  time — one  who  plays  a  part.  He  may  seek  only  to  deceive 
others,  or  he  may  unconsciously  deceive  himself.  Hypocrisy, 
however,  is  either  the  intentional,  or  the  unintentional  acting  of 
a  role. 

Unfortunately,  well  nigh  every  age  betrays  the  earmarks 
of  this  Pharisaic  class.  The  Roman  Church,  for  example,  at 
the  Reformation,  lacked  the  moral  earnestness  to  grasp  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  strenuous  voice  of  Luther,  in  spite  of  the  re¬ 
peated  warnings  of  Savonarola,  Wycliffe,  and  others,  the  far- 
seeing  heralds  of  the  coming  dawn.  The  lethargic  Anglican 
Church  of  the  eighteenth  century  lacked,  to  its  shame  and 
loss,  the  moral  depth  to  appreciate  the  mighty  protest  of  Wesley, 
and  the  zeal  and  intensity  of  the  early  Methodist  movement. 
Yet  both  the  Roman  and  the  Anglican  Churches  were  very 
earnestly  playing  at  religion.  In  fact,  many  instances  of  this 
Pharisaic  blindness  might  be  cited,  not  only  in  the  Church, 
but  in  the  State  and  in  Society.  The  Abolition  movement,  the 
present  labor  agitation,  and  the  general  social  movement  of  our 
time  witness  to  its  presence  in  more  recent  years.  In  truth, 
this  moral  obtuseness  is  the  fruitful  parent  of  heresy  and  schism 
in  the  Church,  and  of  Revolution  in  the  State  and  in  the  Social 
Organism.  These  are  caused  more  frequently  by  the  goodness 
of  the  human  heart  than  by  its  evil.  A  self-satisfied  and 
superficial  age  meets  the  enlightened  or  the  unenlightened, 
the  restless  and  the  earnest  heralds  of  a  new  era  with  stolid  in¬ 
difference,  open  contempt,  or  hostility.  Often  the  witnesses 
for  the  truth  fall,  the  victims  of  their  progressive  ideas,  and 
the  blindness  of  their  generation.  Yet  the  down-trodden 
truth  rises  again,  only  strengthened  by  defeat,  to  cumulate  ever 
accumulating  strength  until  the  storm  breaks;  then  we  have 


The  World’s  Reception  of  the  Kingdom  123 


revolution  in  Church  or  State  or  Society:  the  atmosphere  is 
cleared,  and  men  breathe  more  freely. 

Jesus  also  gives  another  well-founded  criticism  of  this  Phari¬ 
saic  class  in  the  parable  of  the  Two  Sons.  “But  what  think 
ye?  A  certain  man  had  two  sons;  and  he  came  to  the  first, 
and  said,  Son,  go  work  to-day  in  my  vineyard.  He  answered 
and  said,  I  will  not;  but  afterward  he  repented,  and  went. 
And  he  came  to  the  second,  and  said  likewise.  And  he  answered 
and  said,  I  go,  sir :  and  went  not.  Whether  of  them  twain  did 
the  will  of  his  father?  They  say  unto  him,  The  first.  Jesus 
saith  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That  the  publicans 
and  the  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  before  you.  For 
John  came  unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  and  ye  be¬ 
lieved  him  not:  but  the  publicans  and  the  harlots  believed  him: 
and  ye,  when  ye  had  seen  it,  repented  not  afterward,  that  ye 
might  believe  him”  (St.  Matthew  21 :28-32). 

This  parable  is  the  preface  to  the  parables  of  the  Wicked 
Husbandmen,  and  the  Marriage  of  the  King’s  Son.  It  is 
addressed  to  the  same  persons,  and  with  much  the  same  intent. 
In  it,  Jesus  does  for  His  auditors  that  for  which  the  poet  Burns 
petitions  in  his  famous  lines: 

“Oh  wad  some  power  the  giftie  gie  us 
To  see  oursel’s  as  others  see  us!” 

Our  Lord,  in  fact,  not  infrequently  assumes  the  role  of  the 
candid  friend.  Malice,  however,  or  the  mere  desire  to  wound 
are  never  the  prompting  motives.  This  parable,  and  the 
superb  invective  of  the  denunciation  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
more  poignant  than  any  that  can  be  found  in  the  Philippics 
of  Demosthenes,  the  Orations  against  Cataline,  or  the  letters  of 
Junius  (St.  Matthew  23),  are  the  attempts  of  an  outraged 
but  loving  heart  to  open  the  blind  eyes,  and  by  heroic  measures, 
to  sting  into  amendment  of  life,  where  the  soft  appeal  of  love 
has  failed. 

But  what  is  the  portraiture  of  this  parable?  To  under¬ 
stand  that  the  Two  Sons  represent  respectively  the  Jews  and 
the  Gentiles  is  to  misunderstand  the  parable,  and  to  ignore  the 
context.  The  correct  interpretation  finds  in  the  first  mentioned 
son,  the  publicans  and  the  harlots  of  Jesus’  day.  The  former 
were  the  despised  tax-gatherers  who,  as  Jews,  in  the  service  of 


124 


Jesus'  Idea 


the  Roman  Empire,  were  thought  to  sacrifice  both  their  religion 
and  their  patriotism  to  assume  such  an  office.  The  latter  were 
women  of  the  street,  who,  in  the  sacrifice  of  chastity,  lost  self- 
respect,  and  became  a  menace  and  a  scourge  to  others.  These 
classes,  along  with  other  Jews  before  the  days  of  John  the 
Baptist,  had  been  commanded  by  God  to  work  in  His  vine¬ 
yard  of  Israel,  and  to  produce  the  fruit  of  righteousness  of  life 
according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  They 
had  curtly  and  steadily  refused.  But  when  John  came,  there 
was  a  change.  The  tremendous  earnestness  and  the  moral  power 
of  the  man  had  produced  a  conviction  of  sin,  had  fanned  into 
flame  the  slumbering  embers  of  conscience,  and  had  awakened 
a  desire  for  a  better  life.  Consequently  they  repented,  and 
went  into  the  Vineyard. 

But  the  Second  Son — who  is  he?  Manifestly  he  represents 
the  Chief  Priests  and  the  Elders  whom  Jesus  was  addressing; 
the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the  great  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  council  of  the  Jews  and  their  class.  While  they, 
with  much  pretention  and  an  unseemly  ostentation  which  called 
forth  stinging  rebuke  from  Jesus  on  more  than  one  occasion, 
were  apparently  working  in  the  Vineyard,  in  truth  they  were 
not  laboring  in  the  Vineyard  at  all.  And,  unlike  the  poor 
publicans  and  harlots,  the  strong  voice  of  the  Baptist  had  no 
message  for  them,  and  his  passionate  appeal  awakened  no 
response.  Even  when  they  saw  the  supposedly  irredeemable 
classes  repenting,  they  were  not  convinced.  Hence  Jesus  aptly 
remarked,  “The  publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  before  you.”  The  satire  of  this  remark  is  incomparable. 
Before  the  Chief  Priests,  the  Elders,  the  Aristocracy,  the 
Orthodox ,  the  publicans  and  harlots  were  to  enter  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven.  Verily,  the  wounds  of  the  Friend  are  faithful.  But 
how  humbling  to  Jewish  pride,  and  how  bitter  to  Jewish 
ears!  We  must  indeed  admire  the  splendid  courage  of  the 
Man  Christ-Jesus,  and  His  keenness  of  perception.  Have  these 
parables  no  meaning  for  our  generation? 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  VALUE  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

Notwithstanding  its  varying  reception  at  the  hands  of 
men,  the  Kingdom  would  remain  life’s  chief  value.  Jesus  was 
fully  convinced  of  this  as  His  words  attest.  Let  us  notice  some 
of  His  declarations. 

The  Lord’s  Prayer  is  interesting  and  suggestive  in  this  con¬ 
nection.  The  first  petition  is  that  the  name  of  God,  not  the 
mere  name  however,  for  among  the  Hebrews  names  were  not 
conferred  indiscriminately,  but  each  bore  a  distinct  significance, 
rather  the  name  with  all  that  it  connotes  may  be  hallowed 
or  reverenced  of  men.  Secondly,  petition  is  made  that  God’s 
rule  may  become  actual  in  that  God’s  will  may  be  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  done  in  Heaven.  This,  of  course,  would  be  the 
direct  outcome  of  man’s  proper  reverence  for  God;  hence  the 
first  petition  reveals  the  logical  order  both  in  time  and  thought. 
What  is  noteworthy,  however,  is  that  Jesus  foreshadows  His 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  Kingdom,  when  He  makes  prayer 
for  its  coming,  and  that  which  will  induce  its  coming,  precede 
prayer  for  any  immediate  individual  need.  This,  indeed,  is  an 
essential  characteristic  of  all  prayer  genuinely  offered  in  the 
name  of  Jesus.  To  ask  anything  in  Jesus’  name  means  to 
ask  in  the  spirit ,  the  power  and  the  intention  of  Christ.  It 
means  that  the  one  who  prays  is  occupying  toward  God  the 
relationship  of  Jesus  in  love  and  desire,  so  far  as  that  rela¬ 
tionship  can  be  assumed  by  any  human  being.  All  prayer  is, 
therefore,  conditional :  the  condition  of  successful  prayer  is  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  If  this  fact  were  remembered  how  much 
richer  would  be  both  the  teaching  and  the  practice  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

But  we  are  not  confined  to  inferential  evidence  as  to  the 
value  of  the  Kingdom.  There  are  explicit  statements  of 
Jesus  upon  the  subject,  Most  obvious,  perhaps,  is  this  one: 
“Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness;  and 

125 


126 


Jesus’  Idea 


all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you”  (St.  Mt.  6:33 ;  St.  Lu. 
12:31-32).  Here  we  see  that  Jesus  would  not  only  have  the 
coming  of  the  Kingdom  the  primary  burden  of  humanity’s 
prayer,  He  would  also  have  it  the  primary  quest  of  mankind. 
When  given  by  St.  Matthew,  the  words  just  quoted  are  a 
portion  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  context  assist 
greatly  in  their  interpretation.  Jesus  has  just  declared  that 
“No  man  can  serve  two  Masters” — God  and  Gold.  He  bids 
His  followers  “take  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall 
eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink.”  He  inquires,  “Is  not  the  life 
more  than  meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment?”  He  cites  the 
birds  of  the  air,  and  the  tender  lilies  of  the  field  as  illustrations 
of  that  which  is  fed  and  clothed  by  the  Father  in  Heaven 
without  wearying  anxiety.  He  then  asks,  If  God  makes  such 
provision  for  even  the  short-lived  grass  of  the  field,  shall  He  not 
much  more  clothe  and  care  for  His  children?  The  answer  is 
self-evident;  and  Jesus  closes  His  subject  with  an  earnest  ex¬ 
hortation  to  the  disciples,  not  to  take  thought  as  to  what  they 
shall  eat  or  drink,  or  wherewithal  they  shall  be  clothed,  for 
these  are  the  chief  objects  of  the  heathen  Gentile’s  life.  Rather 
are  they  to  “seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteous¬ 
ness;  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added.” 

Jesus,  indeed,  sees  that  mankind  at  large  seeks  the  temporal 
and  the  transient,  and  that  about  these  they  worry  greatly.1 
Now  in  contradistinction  to  this  quest,  Jesus  urges  mankind 
to  seek,  in  the  first  place ,  the  Kingdom  or  sovereignty  of  God. 
His  idea  is  this :  Instead  of  that  forbidden  care  for  temporal  con¬ 
cerns  and  necessities,  which  most  people  make  the  chief  end 
of  life,  mankind  should  seek  first  the  rule  of  God,  and  that 
righteousness  of  life  of  which  God  approves.  The  passage, 
however,  is  really  stronger  than  it  appears  to  be  at  first  sight. 
To  seek  something  first  might  imply  that  there  could  be  a 
legitimate  seeking  of  something  else  second.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  A  second  striving  is  entirely  pre¬ 
cluded  from  His  thought  by  the  words  which  follow,  and 
which  precede  these.  Jesus  has  just  declared  against  the 
objects  of  the  Gentiles’  search,  and  has  shown  that  there  will 

1  “Not  to  be  anxious”  is  the  significance  of  the  Greek  merimnesete, 
which  is  translated  in  the  Authorized  Version  by  the  somewhat 
colorless  phrase,  “Take  no  thought.” 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


127 


be  no  necessity  for  such  a  quest  on  the  part  of  His  followers. 
The  promise  is  explicit  that  in  seeking  first  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  and  His  righteousness,  “all  these  things  shall  be  added 
unto  you  J  (vs.  33). 

Any  strong  statement  is  likely  to  arouse  the  combative 
nature  of  man,  as  strong  natures  always  arouse  more  or  less 
hostility.  This  is  emphatically  true  of  such  a  statement  as 
this.  It  is  a  bold  challenge  to  humanity.  It  attacks  man  in 
a  vital  point.  He  is  told  not  to  make  the  very  things,  which 
seem  to  be  first  by  every  law  of  nature  and  necessity,  the 
object  of  his  consideration.  Instead  he  is  to  seek  what  appears 
to  him  a  somewhat  intangible  and  unreal  something,  called  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  which  in  turn  will  bring  all  needful  things. 
Hence  many  think  Jesus  an  impractical  idealist,  or  a  fraud 
and  sensational  deceiver.  Is  this  statement,  indeed,  sense  or 
nonsense?  Is  it  faith  or  works?  In  answering  this  question, 
we  must  bear  in  mind  the  essential  idea  of  the  Kingdom. 
Then  the  query  is:  Will  food  and  raiment  be  added  to  one 
who  seeks  God’s  absolute  sovereignty  over  his  life,  as  the  gift 
of  God  wholly,  or  is  man  to  be  accounted  a  partial  cause? 
The  answer  to  this  question  also  reveals  one  of  the  Kingdom’s 
fundamental  values. 

While  we  would  not  derogate  from  God’s  part  in  the 
matter,  we  believe  that  the  necessities  of  life  will  be  added 
normally,  not  merely  as  a  reward  but  as  a  partial  effect 
or  result;  for  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  God’s 
law  is  work.  It  is,  indeed,  an  important  requirement  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  and  it  was  a  law  of  nature  long  before 
it  was  a  law  of  religion.  “Work”  is  the  law  of  God,  however, 
enunciated  as  distinctly  in  the  Fourth  Commandment,  as  is  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath.  “Six  days  shalt  thou  labor ,  and  do 
all  that  thou  hast  to  doV  is  as  obligatory  upon  mankind  as 
is  the  duty  implied  in  the  words:  “Remember  the  Sabbath  Day 
to  keep  it  holy.”  The  implications  of  this  truth,  however,  are 
not  as  fully  understood  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  as  they 
ought  to  be.  From  it  follows  that  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  there 
is  nothing  religious  per  se}  and  nothing  secular.  Everything 
indeed  becomes  religious.  Work  is  transfigured.  The  men 
who  labor  on  the  six  days  of  the  week,  become  ministers  of 
God,  no  less  than  he  who  ministers  on  the  one  supposedly 


128 


Jesus ’  Idea 


sacred  day.  The  six  days  for  labor  belong  to  God,  and  are 
quite  as  sacred  as  the  one  day  of  rest.  God  overshadows  the 
week;  it  is  his  entire.  This  truth  also  proves  that  Christianity, 
or  the  Kingdom,  is  the  most  practical  of  all  things.  It  brings 
God  to  bear  upon  every  duty  and  relationship  of  life,  how¬ 
ever  humble,  and  consecrates  each  duty  and  all  relationships  to 
God.  Christianity,  indeed,  is  the  religion  of  the  common¬ 
place.1 

Hence,  in  seeking  first  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  His 
righteousness,  man  is  doing  that  which  inspires  to  work.  This 
is  the  sense  of  Jesus’  remafk  about  the  fowls  of  the  air  and  the 
lilies  of  the  field;  they  are  fed  and  clothed,  yet  they  do  not 
madly  fret  and  strive.  They  simply  fulfil  the  law  of  their 
being,  and,  as  a  result  are  fed  and  clothed  by  God.  So,  says 
Jesus,  should  it  be  among  men.  The  world  is  constituted  for 
man  quite  as  much  as  for  the  birds,  and  if  man  will  simply  fol¬ 
low  the  law  of  his  being,  which  is  to  seek  first  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  food,  drink  and  raiment  will  be  added. 

1  Passing  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New  Testament,  we 
find  Jesus  declaring,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  that  He  must  be 
about  His  Father’s  business.  Later  He  affirmed  that  the  work 
which  His  Father  had  given  Him  to  do  He  had  performed. 
(St.  Jn.  17:4)  “My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.”  Well- 
nigh  the  last  words  of  the  Master  were,  “It  is  finished The  refer¬ 
ence,  of  course,  is  to  His  work.  The  presupposition  also  of  the 
Parable  of  the  Sower,  the  Pounds,  the  Talents,  and  the  Laborers 
in  the  Vineyard,  is  the  idea  of  the  necessity  of  labor.  Everywhere, 
indeed,  Jesus  assumes  work  as  the  normal  characteristic  of  man. 
Even  in  the  selection  of  His  apostles  He  followed  the  principle 
so  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  Old  Testament:  Elisha  was  sum¬ 
moned  to  the  prophetical  office  from  the  plow.  Saul  and  David 
and  Moses  were  also  called  from  busy  activity  to  their  respective 
duties.  God  apparently  had  no  respect  for  idlers.  Indeed  God 
and  men  alike,  and  even  bees,  despise  drones.  Hence  the  Apostles 
were  summoned  from  ships,  from  nets,  and  from  the  receipt  of 
customs ;  none  were  called  from  the  street  corners  or  the  market 
places.  From  fishers  of  fish  they  became  fishers  of  men.  They 
exchanged  one  department  of  work  for  another.  The  mind  of 
God  and  of  Jesus  upon  this  point  is,  indeed,  fully  revealed  in 
the  question :  “If  therefore  ye  have  not  been  faithful  in  the 
unrighteous  mammon,  who  will  commit  to  your  trust  the  true 
riches?”  (St.  Luke  16:11.)  It  is  the  servant  who  has  been  “faith¬ 
ful  in  very  little”  to  whom  is  committed  “authority  over  ten- 
cities”  (St.  Lu.  19:17).  Such  language  denotes  the  really  spiritual 
nature  of  work.  Labor,  indeed,  is  a  sacrament  of  grace. 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


129 


This  however,  is  not  the  way  of  the  world.  The  usual  way 
is  to  seek  first  jnaterial  things ,  then,  by  and  by,  perhaps  spiritual 
things.1 

Even  more  explicitly,  however,  the  value  of  the  Kingdom  is 
disclosed  in  the  parables  of  the  Hidden  Treasure  and  the 
Pearl  of  Great  Price.  Spoken  in  the  privacy  of  a  dwelling, 
and  to  the  disciples  alone,  these  parables  constitute  Jesus’  most 
emphatic  statement  of  the  supreme  value  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  “Again,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  like  unto  treasure  hid  in 
a  field,  the  which  when  a  man  hath  found,  he  hideth,  and 
for  joy  thereof  goeth  and  selleth  all  that  he  hath,  and  buyeth 
that  field.  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  mer¬ 
chant  man,  seeking  goodly  pearls :  wTho,  when  he  hath  found  one 
pearl  of  great  price,  went  and  sold  all  that  he  had,  and  bought 
it”  (St.  Mt.  13:44-46). 

Archbishop  Trench  informs  us  “that  in  the  East,  on  account 
of  the  different  changes  of  dynasties,  and  the  revolutions  which 
accompany  them,  many  rich  men  divide  their  goods  into  three 
parts:  one  they  employ  in  common,  or  for  their  necessary  sup- 

1  The  order  of  quest,  emphasized  here  by  Christ,  is  also  set  forth 
in  the  Lord’s  Prayer:  “Thy  Kingdom  come;  Thy  will  be  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  in  heaven” ;  then  follows,  “Give  us  this  day  our  daily 
bread.”  This  teaching  almost  convinces  of  the  authenticity  of  a 
purported  saying  of  Jesus,  which  has  been  handed  down  by  Clement. 
Origen,  and  Eusebius:  “Ask  the  great  things,  and  the  small  will 
be  added  to  you ;  ask  also  the  heavenly  things,  and  the  earthly  will 
be  added  to  you  ” 

It  is  significant  that  in  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  the  parable  of  the 
Rich  Fool  is  the  occasion  of  Jesus’  exhortation :  “Seek  first  the 
Kingdom  of  God.”  Whether  Jesus  repeated  His  teaching,  or  whether 
this  difference  is  due  to  confusion  in  the  Evangelist’s  mind,  is  com¬ 
paratively  unimportant.  The  context  in  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  is  at  least 
logical,  if  not  historical.  To  emphasize  the  usual  quest  of  man 
and  its  futility,  Jesus  spoke  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Fool.  He 
then  followed  in  much  the  same  strain  as  in  St.  Matthew’s  report, 
and  concludes  with  the  command,  “Seek  ye  first  the  Kingdom  of 
God.”  The  meaning  is  quite  apparent.  The  Rich  Fool,  as  the 
result  of  his  life  of  striving,  had  amassed  wealth  ;  he  thought  him¬ 
self  sufficient  unto  himself,  but  the  Kingdom  of  God  did  not  come. 
He  died  a  spiritual  bankrupt.  Now,  in  marked  contrast  to  this, 
Jesus  remarks  that  where  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  sought  first , 
temporal  necessities  will  follow,  at  least  in  a  measurable  degree. 
The  Fool  had  made  a  fatal  mistake.  To  warn  against  a  similar 
mistake  is  the  object  of  Jesus. 


130 


Jesus’  Idea 


port:  one  they  turn  into  jewels,  which,  should  it  prove  need¬ 
ful  to  fly,  could  be  easily  carried  with  them;  a  third  part 
they  bury.  But  as  they  trust  no  one  with  the  place  where 
the  treasure  is  buried,  so  is  the  same,  should  they  not  return 
to  the  spot  before  their  death,  as  good  as  lost  to  the  living, 
until  by  chance,  a  lucky  peasant  digging  in  his  field,  lights 
upon  it.  And  thus  when  we  read  in  Eastern  tales  how  a  man 
has  found  a  buried  treasure,  and  in  a  moment  risen  from  poverty 
to  great  riches,  this  is,  in  fact,  no  strange  or  rare  occurrence, 
but  a  natural  consequence  of  the  customs  of  these  people.” 

Such,  indeed,  is  the  circumstance  of  the  first  of  these 
parables.  A  man  has  stumbled  unexpectedly  upon  a  hid  treasure. 
For  fear  it  might  escape  him,  he  hides  it  again,  while  he  goes 
and  sells  all  that  he  has,  and  buys  the  field.  The  legality  of 
this  action  is  indisputable;  the  morality  of  it  is  certainly 
questionable.  Jesus,  however,  is  not  discussing  the  morality  of 
the  action;  He  is  simply  setting  forth  the  supreme  value  of 
the  Kingdom,  and  the  price  at  which  alone  it  can  be  bought. 
This  parable  must  be  classified  with  the  parables  of  the 
Unjust  Judge,  and  the  Unjust  Steward,  and  interpreted  in  the 
same  generous  way.  Evidently,  Jesus  was  not  in  sympathy  with 
intellectual  prudery.  The  second  illustration,  however,  offers 
no  difficulty.  A  merchant  was  seeking  pearls.  These  were 
greatly  esteemed  in  the  Ancient  World.  Beautiful  in  them¬ 
selves,  the  tradition  as  to  their  formation  probably  enhanced 
their  value.  “The  fish  conceived  the  pearl  from  the  dew  of 
heaven,  and  according  to  the  quality  of  the  dew,  it  was  pure 
and  round,  or  cloudy  and  deformed  with  specks.  The  state  of 
the  atmosphere  at  this  time  of  conception,  and  the  hour  of 
the  day,  had  great  influence  on  their  size  and  color.”  “Goodly 
pearls”  this  merchantman  is  seeking.  He  finds  one,  at  length, 
of  great  price,  and,  selling  all  that  he  has,  makes  himself 
the  owner  of  the  coveted  treasure. 

These  parables  are  much  alike  in  their  general  features,  yet 
there  is  a  noteworthy  difference.  With  His  accustomed  in¬ 
sight,  Jesus  divides  mankind  into  two  classes  :  the  seekers,  and 
the  non-seekers,  the  thinkers,  and  the  non-thinkers,  the  aspirants, 
and  the  non-aspirants.  The  division,  however,  is  absolutely  un¬ 
tainted  by  cynical  criticism,  or  haughty  depreciation  of  those 
who  do  not  think.  The  man  who  find§  the  Hid  Treasurej 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom  13 1 

stumbles  upon  it  accidentally ;  he  is  involved  in  no  conscious 
search  for  anything.  This  is  typical  of  the  majority  of  men. 
For  them,  there  is  no  absolute  good  in  life.  That  which  is 
immediately  about  them  occupies  their  thought  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  else.  They  are  content  to  live  in  the  practical  and  the 
material.  Speculation  as  to  their  origin,  the  reason  for  their 
existence,  and  their  destiny,  is  utterly  foreign  to  them.  They 
are  men,  “Who  have  no  Whence  or  Whither  in  their  souls.” 
They  are  unconscious  of  any  treasure  of  surpassing  worth, 
hidden  from  their  eyes,  and  lying  deeper  than  they  have  ex¬ 
plored.  But  suddenly,  and  unexpectedly,  the  blind  eyes  are 
opened,  the  treasure  is  discovered,  and  their  joy  becomes  intense. 

But  what  is  the  discovery?  Some  maintain  that  the  field 
of  the  parable  is  the  Bible,  and  the  Hid  Treasure,  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Christ  which  is  hidden  there.  Others  identify  the 
field  with  the  visible  Church,  while  the  Hid  Treasure  is  the  in¬ 
ward  and  spiritual  Church.  Neither  of  these  interpretations, 
however,  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the  parable.  The  field  is 
the  world  of  human  life,  and  its  Hid  Treasure  is  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  and  the  necessity  for  God’s  rule,  which  most  men  over¬ 
look,  entirely  unconscious  of  its  value,  until  perchance  stumbling 
upon  it,  they  perceive  its  inestimable  worth,  and  for  joy,  gladly 
sacrifice  all  that  they  possess  to  gain  it.  What,  indeed,  could 
better  express  the  sacrifice  of  self-will  in  its  countless  manifesta¬ 
tions — the  imperative  price  of  the  Kingdom,  as  we  have  seen 
— than  the  parting  with  all  one’s  possessions  in  order  that  this 
Treasure  might  be  obtained. 

In  the  second  parable,  however,  we  have  a  merchantman 
seeking  goodly  pearls.  Unlike  the  personage  of  the  former 
parable,  this  man  is  alive  to  the  higher  things  of  life.  Finali¬ 
ties  have  for  him  an  interest,  also  origins.  The  material 
and  the  practical  are  not  sufficient.  He  rises  above  the  carnal, 
and  considers  the  intellectual,  perhaps  the  spiritual.  He  asks 
questions  which  he  cannot  answer.  He  thinks,  he  aspires! 
Finally  he  discovers  one  pearl  of  surpassing  worth.  He  sells 
all  that  he  has,  that  he  may  buy  it.  His  search  need  go  no 
further.  The  void  of  his  life  is  filled.  All  lesser  things  become 
centered  in  one  thing.  Life  is  seen  to  be  a  unit.  Finalities  and 
origins  are  explained.  His  questions  are  answered.  He  has 
found  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price. 


132 


Jesus'  Idea 


If  we  put  ourselves  in  the  position  of  those  who  listened  to 
the  Master,  we  must  agree  with  them  as  to  the  utterly  stupe¬ 
fying  effect  of  these  parables  as  spoken  by  Him.  To  Jesus’ 
countrymen,  the  supreme  value  of  the  Kingdom  lay  in  the 
avenging  of  Israel’s  wrongs,  the  humiliation  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  exaltation  of  the  Jew  in  the  establishment  of  a  world 
empire.  But  what  was  its  value  in  the  thought  of  this  singular 
Galilean?  The  disciples  even  could  not  understand.  The 
vision  of  the  Jews,  indeed,  included  themselves  alone:  their  his¬ 
tory,  their  wrongs,  their  destiny — this  earth.  Jesus,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  surveyed  humanity  throughout  the  ages;  the  world’s 
history,  its  wrongs,  its  destiny — not  only  earth,  but  heaven. 
There  was  no  necessarily  irreconcilable  conflict,  however,  be¬ 
tween  the  two  views.  The  history  of  the  Jews  and  the  world’s 
history  were  not  intended  for  hopeless  contrariety.  They 
were  intended  to  be  complementary.  But  the  Jews  would  not 
have  it  God’s  way.  They  could  only  interpret  value  in  terms 
of  earth  and  of  self.  Spiritual  things  were  “at  a  discount.” 
Hence,  Jesus’  conception  of  the  Kingdom’s  value  was  an 
enigma  beyond  solution.  How  could  the  Kingdom  of  this 
peasant,  the  Galilean  carpenter,  be  the  most  valuable  of  all 
things,  and  worth  life’s  supremest  sacrifice?  Yet,  despite  the 
national  rejection  of  the  Kingdom,  despite  the  sorry  reception 
which  it  would  receive  at  the  hands  of  men,  despite  class  criticism 
and  repudiation,  Jesus  never  wavered  in  His  estimate  of  its 
value.  Was  it  madness?  The  Jews  thought  so.  Is  it  mad¬ 
ness  to-day  to  declare  the  Kingdom  of  God  the  highest  good? 
The  world  thinks  so.  Is  this,  however,  a  criticism  of  the 
Jews  and  of  the  World,  or  of  Jesus  and  the  Kingdom?  Let 
us  see. 

The  Kingdom  of  God  in  its  last  analysis  is  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  whether  we  consider  it  from  the  standpoint  of  fact, 
intent,  or  aim.  What,  then,  is  the  value  of  this  to  man? 
This  is  a  large  question,  and  in  endeavoring  to  answer  it  we  can¬ 
not  be  more  than  suggestive.  The  Kingdom  is  the  most  valu¬ 
able  of  all  things  in  that  it  means  the  salvation  of  the  in¬ 
dividual,  and  of  the  world.  The  presupposition  of  Christianity 
is  that  we  live  in  a  lost  world.  An  old-fashioned  idea,  and  un¬ 
pleasant  to  the  ears  of  our  masterful  generation,  it  is  never- 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


133 


theless  true.1  But  what  is  meant  by  being  lost?  When  we 
speak  of  the  lost  condition,  and  we  are  thinking  of  religion, 
Hell  is  usually  prominent  in  the  thought.  Our  minds  are  full 
of  imagery,  the  creation  of  dread,  and  of  much  preaching. 
The  word  has  thus  a  harsh  meaning.  Indeed,  when  many  refer 
to  the  mission  of  Our  Lord,  they  speak  of  it  as  an  endeavor 
to  save  mankind  from  the  torments  of  Hell.  This,  however,  is 
only  a  half-truth,  and,  without  the  complementary  truth,  is 
exceedingly  pernicious,  for  it  loses  sight  of  the  primary  idea 
of  the  term. 

Jesus,  however,  constantly  used  the  word  and  He  must  have 
had  a  definite  idea  as  to  its  meaning.  In  studying  His  thought, 
indeed,  we  have  an  opportunity  to  learn  how  the  true  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  New  Testament  is  often  marred  by  our  unwilling¬ 
ness  to  interpret  the  words  of  Jesus  in  their  natural  significance, 
and  without  recourse  to  strained  traditionalism.  In  three 
memorable  parables,  Jesus  indicates  the  true  signification  of  this 
word.  In  defending  His  seemingly  familiar  intercourse  with 
publicans  and  sinners  from  Pharisaic  aspersion,  He  narrates 
the  Parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  and  the  Lost, 
or  Prodigal  Son  (St.  Lu.  15).  In  the  first  of  these,  Jesus 
justifies  His  conduct  by  that  of  a  shepherd,  who  leaves  his 
ninety  and  nine  sheep  to  seek  one  that  is  lost;  in  the  second, 
by  that  of  a  woman  who  spares  neither  time  nor  strength  in 
the  search  for  a  coin  which  had  been  lost.  In  the  third,  He 
tells  the  story  of  two  brothers,  one  of  whom  leads  a  life 
of  filial  obedience,  while  the  other,  departing  from  his  father’s 
home,  seeks  the  excitement  of  riotous  living.  He  drinks  the 
cup  of  his  fancied  happiness  to  the  dregs,  and  then  comes 
the  inevitable  reaction,  satiety.  Seeing  the  distress  to  which 
his  folly  has  brought  him,  he  returns  to  his  home,  and  is  wel¬ 
comed  by  his  father  with  merriment  and  thanksgiving,  while 
his  elder  brother  is  displeased  at  the  favor  shown  the  wanderer. 
Now  what  is  important  for  our  subject  is  this:  the  father 
justifies  his  conduct  in  these  words:  “It  was  meet  that  we 
should  make  merry,  and  be  glad,  for  this  thy  brother  was 
dead,  and  is  alive  again;  and  was  lost  and  is  found V  Here 
the  fundamental  meaning  of  “lost,”  as  used  by  Jesus,  is  evi- 

1  “The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  save  that  which  was  lost.”  (St.  Mt. 
18:11.) 


134 


J esus}  Idea 


dent.  The  boy  had  strayed  from  his  father’s  house,  had  become 
lost  in  the  path  of  living.  Returning,  however,  to  home  and 
duty,  he  is  said  to  have  been  found.  Thus  the  term  is  truly 
pathetic.  The  word  speaks  of  a  human  being,  who,  embarked 
upon  the  sea  of  life,  has  lost  his  bearings,  is  tempest  tossed, 
and  likely  not  to  reach  his  destination. 

If  we  think  of  the  depths  of  meaning  in  the  word,  as  thus 
interpreted,  we  understand  the  work  of  Jesus  as  we  never 
did.  There  bursts  upon  us  the  full  significance  of  the  saying: 
“I  am  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life.”  Men,  indeed,  are 
lost  in  the  way  of  living;  lost,  too,  to  the  truth,  thinking 
erroneously,  and  with  truth  divorced  from  life ;  confused,  also, 
as  to  the  ideal  of  life,  and  craving  the  inspiration  to  live.  Jesus, 
however,  cries,  “I  am  the  Way,  the  Truth  and  the  Life.” 
The  exquisite  tenderness  of  the  figure  of  the  Good  Shepherd  also 
becomes  very  real.  Thus  Jesus’  conception  is  one  of  great 
beauty  and  persuasiveness.  Pitying  humanity,  He  has  come 
to  save,  not  so  much  from  future  penalty,  as  from  present  peril. 

An  age  of  surpassing  achievements  in  the  material  and  the 
intellectual  worlds  may  be  loth  to  believe  itself  lost.  Looking, 
however,  from  the  world  without  the  man  to  the  world  within, 
skepticism  becomes  belief;  doubt,  certainty.  Soon  or  late,  man 
is  convinced  of  his  impotency  with  regard  to  himself.  He 
is  conscious  of  a  strange  contrariety  of  experience.  He  cannot 
interpret  himself  to  himself.  He  cannot  control  himself. 
Nature  and  mind  are  easier  to  harness  and  to  handle  than  self. 
He  fulfils  to  some  degree  in  his  own  personality  the  experience 
so  graphically  depicted  by  St.  Paul.  “For  that  which  I  do 
I  allow;  but  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not;  but  what  I  hate, 
that  do  I.  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth 
no  good  thing;  for  to  will  is  present  with  me;  but  how  to  per¬ 
form  that  which  is  good  I  find  not.  For  the  good  that  I 
would,  I  do  not;  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do. 
Now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it, 
but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  I  find  then  a  law,  that,  when 
I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man :  But  I  see  another  law 
in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and 
bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my 
members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am!  who  shall  deliver  me 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


135 


from  the  body  of  this  death?”  (Rom.  7:15,  18-24). 

This  experience,  indeed,  is  universal.  Man  is  at  war  with 
himself.  His  higher  and  lower  natures  fight.  The  lower  often 
triumphs,  and  with  the  triumph  comes  the  haunting  convic¬ 
tion  that  it  ought  not  to  have  triumphed.  Man  suffers,  in 
fact,  from  what  the  philosopher  Kant  calls  the  categorical 
imperative',  that  within  which  tells  him  in  no  uncertain  voice 
that  he  ought  and  ought  not.  While  the  individual  is  free 
to  choose  between  different  courses  of  action,  there  is  something 
within  which  unfalteringly  bids  him  choose  the  right.  If  the  di¬ 
rection  is  not  obeyed,  a  feeling  of  guilt  ensues.  Life  thus 
abundantly  witnesses  to  man’s  lost  condition,  and  explains 
humanity’s  constant  cry:  “Oh  for  a  man  to  arise  in  me, 
That  the  man  I  am,  may  cease  to  be!” 

Now  just  here  appears  the  supreme  value  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  It  is  the  Kingdom  which  finds  man.  It  rescues  him 
in  the  lost  condition.  It  brings  the  prodigal  back  to  the 
Father’s  house.  Or,  if  we  adopt  more  popular  phraseology, 
it  is  the  Kingdom  which  saves  man.  In  using  this  term,  how¬ 
ever,  we  must  interpret  aright  a  misinterpreted  theological 
term.  What  is  salvation?  Let  us  take  our  cue  from  the 
name  of  our  Lord.  The  name  Jesus,  true  to  the  Hebrew 
usage,  was  not  conferred  haphazardly  upon  the  Christ-Child. 
“Thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins ”  (St.  Mt.  1:21).  Jesus,  in  fact,  is  the  Greek 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew,  Joshua,  or  Jehoshua,  which  means 
“Jehovah  will  save.”  The  name  was  bestowed  upon  Jesus 
because  it  was  typical  of  His  life  work.  But  from  what  was  He 
to  save?  “From  Hell,”  of  course  is  the  usual  reply.  Yet 
the  Angel  of  the  Annunciation  declares:  “he  shall  save  his 
people  from  their  sins.”  Now  manifestly  there  is  a  difference 
in  these  two  conceptions.  Salvation  from  sin  is  the  real  mis¬ 
sion  of  Christ,  however,  and  in  order  to  understand  the  high 
valuation  which  He  placed  upon  the  Kingdom  of  God,  we 
must  ask  another  question,  What  is  sin? 

The  Greek  word  translated  “sin”  is  amartia,  which  means 
“missing  the  mark.”  It  is  very  significant  that  the  words  most 
frequently  used  for  “sin”  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment  have  this  fundamental  idea.  Man  is  regarded  as  having 
missed  the  mark  which  God  has  set  for  him.  Humanity  has 


136 


Jesus’  Idea 


missed  its  aim.  Life  in  consequence  is  largely  a  bungle  and  a 
tangle ;  thought,  an  error  and  deceit.  And  man  feels  measurably 
responsible  for  this.  Hence  to  the  anguish  of  the  condition 
itself  is  added  the  haunting  sense  of  guilt  with  its  inevitable 
accompaniment — the  fear  of  punishment.  This,  indeed,  is  the 
condition  from  which  Jesus  came  to  save.  Salvation,  then,  is 
something  more  than  deliverance  from  a  future  Hell. 

The  popular  idea  of  salvation,  we  fear,  loses  entirely  the  true 
beauty  of  the  thought  of  Jesus.  Let  us  remember  that  the 
words  used  by  our  Lord  are  always  of  poetic  significance. 
Jesus  was  neither  a  dogmatician  nor  a  systematic  theologian. 
H  is  method  was  to  suggest  rather  than  to  define;  to  provoke 
thought  rather  than  to  offset  inquiry.  “Salvation,”  indeed,  as 
it  represents  His  thought,  was  full  of  poetic  meaning.  The 
Greek  term  has  the  thought  of  healing ,  curing,  making  well. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  word  used  in  the  Angelic 
message  is  employed  by  the  Evangelists  on  several  occasions 
to  translate  the  thought  of  Jesus  Himself.  For  example, 
in  speaking  to  the  poor  woman  who  had  an  issue  of  blood,  and 
who  had  just  touched  His  garment,  Jesus  said:  “Daughter,  be  of 
good  cheer,  thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole  ”  i.  e.,  saved  thee; 
for  the  word  translated  “hath  made  thee  whole”  is  this  very 
word  “save”  (St.  Mt.  9:22).  Again  in  St.  Mark  10:52, 
Jesus,  in  curing  a  man  of  his  blindness,  says:  “Go  thy  way,  thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  whole.”  Here  again  is  our  word  “save.” 
Now  in  both  of  these  instances — and  others  might  be  cited — 
the  reference  is  to  a  person  who  is  afflicted  or  diseased.  Jesus 
comes  and  saves  them  physically,  i.  e.,  makes  them  well.  This 
word,  then,  when  applied  to  the  spiritual  part  of  man,  repre¬ 
sents  most  admirably  Jesus’  conception  of  salvation  as  spiritual 
health.  Jesus,  Himself,  in  justifying  His  intercourse  with  out¬ 
casts,  says,  “They  that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick.” 

The  idea,  then,  is  that  mankind  is  morally  diseased,  and 
to  cure  the  maladies  of  the  soul  and  their  gruesome  conse¬ 
quences,  to  save  man  in  this  sense,  Jesus  came.1  Consequently, 

1  This  idea  of  salvation  as  healthfulness  is  found  in  certain  of 
the  Psalms :  “Thy  way  may  be  known  upon  earth ;  thy  saving 
health  among  all  nations”  (Ps.  67).  Again,  in  Psalm  103,  we  read 
of  the  Lord  who  “healeth  all  thine  infirmities.” 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


*37 


salvation  is  the  curing  of  humanity’s  malady,  in  order  that  the 
individual  and  the  race  may  hit  the  mark,  or  attain  their  God- 
appointed  goal.  It  is  also  the  removal  of  that  sense  of  guilt, 
which  rests  upon  mankind  like  a  somber  pall,  and  which  often 
engenders  despair.  Salvation,  indeed,  is  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

We  have  dwelt  upon  this  subject  because  it  is  of  great  im¬ 
portance  in  properly  estimating  the  value  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  It  is  only  in  the  Kingdom,  in  fact,  that  man  can  find  him¬ 
self;  self-realization  through  self-sacrifice ;  can  find  the  unifying 
principle  of  life,  developing  through  his  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God,  all  the  powers,  active  and  latent,  in  his  personality. 
And  he  thus  affects  not  only  himself,  for  no  man  liveth  unto 
himself,  but  others  also.  He  may  influence  even  posterity 
through  the  laws  of  heredity,  and  also  the  general  environment 
of  man.  If  it  is  true  that  the  sins  of  the  fathers  are  visited 
upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  those 
that  hate  God  and  refuse  to  obey  Him,  it  is  equally  true 
that  the  virtues  of  the  fathers  are  visited  upon  thousands  in 
them  that  love  God  and  keep  His  commandments.  So  that  the 
Kingdom  of  God  in  the  individual  begets  the  Kingdom  of  God 
in  the  offspring;  or,  if  this  be  too  strong  a  statement,  it  at  least 
predisposes  to,  and  paves  the  way  for,  its  establishment. 

“I  read  a  record  deeper  than  the  skin. 

What !  Shall  the  trick  of  nostrils  and  of  lips 
Descend  through  generations,  and  the  soul 
That  moves  within  our  frame  like  God  in  worlds — 
Convulsing,  urging,  melting,  withering — 

Imprint  no  record,  leave  no  documents, 

Of  her  great  history?  Shall  men  bequeath 
The  fancies  of  their  palate  to  their  sons, 

And  shall  the  shudder  of  restraining  awe, 

The  slow-wept  tears  of  contrite  memory. 

Faith’s  prayerful  labor,  and  the  food  divine 
Of  fasts  ecstatic — shall  these  pass  away 
Like  wind  upon  the  waters,  tracklessly? 

Shall  the  mere  curl  of  eyelashes  remain, 

And  God-enshrining  symbols  leave  no  trace 
Of  tremors  reverent?” 

But  man  is  more  than  the  product  of  heredity.  He  is  influ¬ 
enced  profoundly  by  his  surroundings.  Yet,  while  environ¬ 
ment  may  make  the  man,  man  also  makes  the  environment. 
Hence  it  is  important  to  observe  that  the  Kingdom  of  God 


Jesus’  Idea 


138 

in  man  means  both  gradually  and  ultimately  the  creation  of  an 
environment  which  is  favorable  to  the  interests  of  the  Kingdom 
in  the  individual,  and  in  the  world.  The  words  of  St.  Paul 
are  significant  to-day:  “For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the 
creature  waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God. 
Because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children 
of  God.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now”  (Rom.  8:19-21-22). 
The  present  environment  of  man,  indeed,  cries  out  for  redemp¬ 
tion.  This  the  Kingdom  gives.  In  it,  both  man  and  creatures 
are  relieved.  Even  the  horse,  the  dog,  and  the  cat  fare  the 
better.  The  yoke  of  sin  is  lifted.  All  things  again  become 
good.  Thus  we  see  that  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  no  arbi¬ 
trary  fiat  of  a  tyrannous  sovereign.  It  is  designed  for  the 
good  of  man;  it  represents  the  truest  welfare  of  mankind. 
With  it,  man  becomes  a  new  creature,  and  earth  is  transfigured. 
It  is,  indeed,  the  making  of  an  ideal  humanity,  and  an  ideal 
world.  Do  we  wonder  that  Jesus  stressed  the  value  of  the 
Kingdom?  Was  He  mistaken  in  His  estimate? 

The  Kingdom,  however,  has  an  additional  value,  at  least  in 
the  thought  of  the  writer.  The  Kingdom  of  God,  indeed,  is 
the  harmony  of  the  mind  as  well  as  of  the  soul.  It  is  mental 
peace  no  less  than  spiritual  peace.  Man,  upon  reflection, 
stands  aghast  at  his  own  apparent  insignificance  in  the  presence 
of  the  teeming  millions  of  the  world,  in  the  presence  of  the 
ages  of  the  past  and  of  the  future,  and  in  the  presence  of  the 
shortness  and  uncertainty  of  the  individual  life.  Looking  upon 
the  world  of  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future,  however, 
the  subject  of  the  Kingdom  sees  nothing  to  dismay.  Man  is 
apparently  insignificant,  and  of  few  days — but  what  of  that? 
This  world  always  has  been  and  always  will  be  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  God,  indeed,  is  sovereign ;  man  may  destroy  himself, 
as  we  have  seen,  but  he  cannot  destroy  God’s  plan,  nor  ulti¬ 
mately  thwart  God’s  purpose.  And  there  is  purpose  in  the 
drama  of  Creation.  The  past  has  not  been  aimless,  nor  is  the 
present  goalless.  The  mind  of  man,  indeed,  can  detect  order 
and  advance  in  history,  slow,  tortuous  but  sure:  a  movement 
sometimes  forward,  sometimes  backward,  but  ever  on  the  whole 
ascending,  never  moving  in  mere  cycles.  And  every  individual 


The  Value  of  the  Kingdom 


139 


has  a  relation  to  this  purpose.  The  individual  is  a  factor, 
albeit,  a  small  factor  in  the  plan,  yet  very  necessary;  each  in¬ 
dividual  is,  indeed,  as  it  were  a  stone  in  a  great  structure. 
The  Architect  is  God.  Thus  the  Kingdom  of  God  gives  the 
true  perspective  from  which  to  view  man,  life  and  history.  The 
Kingdom,  indeed,  is  seen  to  be  the  intent,  the  end  and  the  aim 
of  human  history.  It  explains  the  individual  to  himself;  it 
is  man’s  apology  for  existence,  the  raison  d’etre  of  his  being. 
It  makes  intelligible  the  centuries  of  the  past,  and  the  individual’s 
relation  thereto.  Further,  in  exhibiting  the  vastness  of  the 
eternal  design,  it  makes  apparent  the  slowness  of  the  process, 
the  complexity  of  its  movements,  and  the  value  of  even  the 
most  trivial  things.  It  also  suggests  much  as  to  the  glory 
and  the  splendor  of  the  consummation  of  the  process  and  the 
character  of  the  issue  of  the  age-long  development.  It  extends 
also  into  the  eternal  world  and  finds  place  fof  those  who  have 
gone  before;  the  individuals  and  the  nations  which  are  passed 
away;  offering  immeasurable  opportunity  to  those  who  perish 
with  untried  and  undeveloped  powers.  The  Kingdom  of  God, 
indeed,  is  a  conception  and  a  reality,  which  includes  not  only 
the  individual  and  society,  but  the  world  and  the  universe, 
heaven  and  earth,  time  and  eternity.  Thus  the  philosophical 
value  of  the  Kingdom  is  marked  no  less  than  its  spiritual  value. 
Again  we  ask,  was  Jesus’  mistaken  in  His  estimate  of  the  King¬ 
dom’s  worth? 


CHAPTER  X 


THE  ALLOY  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

If  the  parables  of  the  Sower  and  of  the  Seed  Growing 
Secretly  were  a  revelation  and  a  disappointment  to  the  Jews, 
equally,  if  not  more  keenly,  disappointing  were  the  parables 
of  the  Tares  and  of  the  Drag-Net1  Yet  these  followed  logically 
from  the  Kingdom’s  general  analogy — growth.  All  that  Jesus 
taught,  in  fact,  in  regard  to  the  development  of  the  Kingdom 
was  logically  deducible  from  this  fundamental  truth.  The 
Jews,  however,  not  being  able  to  grant  the  premise,  could  not 
accept  the  conclusions;  yet  the  revelation  contained  in  these 

1  The  illustrations  are  as  follows :  “Another  parable  put  he  forth 
unto  them,  saying,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto  a  man 
which  sowed  good  seed  in  his  field :  But  while  men  slept,  his 
enemy  came  and  sowed  tares  among  the  wheat,  and  went  his  way. 
But  when  the  blade  was  sprung  up,  and  brought  forth  fruit,  then 
appeared  the  tares  also.  So  the  servants  of  the  house-holder 
came  and  said  unto  him,  Sir,  didst  not  thou  sow  good  seeds  in  thy 
field?  from  whence  then  hath  it  tares?  He  said  unto  them,  An 
enemy  hath  done  this.  The  servants  said  unto  him,  Wilt  thou  then 
that  we  go  and  gather  them  up?  But  he  said,  Nay;  lest  while  ye 
gather  up  the  tares,  ye  root  up  also  the  wheat  with  them.  Let  both 
grow  together  until  the  harvest :  and  in  the  time  of  harvest  I 
will  say  to  the  reapers,  Gather  ye  together  first  the  tares,  and 
bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them :  but  gather  the  wheat  into  my 
barn.”  (St.  Mt.  13:24-31.)  We  find  nothing  to  commend  itself 
in  the  idea  that  the  parable  of  the  Tares  is  an  amplification  of 
the  parable  of  the  Growing  Seed  in  St.  Mk.  4:26-29,  and  that  its 
exposition  was  an  interpretation  emanating  from  the  Evangelist, 
or  in  current  use  among  the  early  disciples. 

The  parable  of  the  Drag-Net  is  close  akin  in  spirit,  but  different 
in  detail.  “Again  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  net,  that 
was  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind :  Which,  when 
it  was  full,  they  drew  to  shore,  and  sat  down,  and  gathered  the 
good  into  vessels,  but  cast  the  bad  away.  So  shall  it  be  at  the 
end  of  the  world :  the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever  the  wicked 
from  among  the  just,  And  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire: 
there  shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth.”  (St.  Mt.  13:47-50.) 

140 


The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom 


141 

parables  (St.  Mt.  13:24-31;  47-50)  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
mastery  of  the  Kingdom.  But  what  is  this  revelation? 

The  fondest  dream  of  the  Jews,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
the  Messianic  Kingdom.  With  its  advent  every  wrong  would 
be  righted.  Evil  would  no  longer  triumph,  but  goodness,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  standard  of  the  age,  would  reign  unquestioned. 
The  prophets,  indeed,  had  bequeathed  this  conception  to  subse¬ 
quent  generations.  In  fact,  it  was  prophecy — the  coming  of 
unconditioned  goodness.  Isaiah,  for  instance,  sang:  “Awake, 
awake;  put  on  thy  strength,  O  Zion;  put  on  thy  beautiful 
garments,  O  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city;  for  henceforth  there 
shall  no  more  come  into  thee  the  uncircumcised  and  the  unclean” 
(52:1);  “Thy  people  also  shall  be  all  righteous”  (60:21); 
“And  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way,  and  it  shall  be 
called,  The  way  of  holiness;  the  unclean  shall  not  pass  over 
it”  (35:38).  Zephaniah  writes:  “The  remnant  of  Israel  shall 
not  do  iniquity,  nor  speak  lies,  neither  shall  a  deceitful  tongue 
be  found  in  their  mouth.”  Ezekiel,  with  all  the  passion  of  an 
ardent  soul,  pictures  the  return  from  exile,  and  the  unification 
of  Israel,  and  concludes  with  the  glowing  prediction  of  the  full 
realization  of  the  hope  cherished  for  Israel  by  every  prophetic 
heart:  “I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people.” 
(37.-2I-27).1 

1  But  more  convincing  is  the  eloquent  utterance  which  so  distinctly 
colored  the  subsequent  Messianic  expectation :  “And  there  shall 
come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  Branch  shall  grow 
out  of  his  roots :  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him, 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and 
might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge,  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord;  And 
shall  make  him  of  quick  understanding  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord ; 
And  he  shall  not  judge  after  the  sight  of  his  eyes,  neither  reprove 
after  the  hearing  of  his  ears :  But  with  righteousness  shall  he 
judge  the  poor,  and  reprove  with  equity  for  the  meek  of  the  earth: 
and  he  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with 
the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked.  And  righteousness 
shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faithfulness  the  girdle  of  his 
reins.  The  wolf  also  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard 
shall  lie  down  with  the  kid;  and  the  calf  and  the  young  lion,  and 
the  fatling  together,  and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them.  And  the 
cow  and  the  bear  shall  feed;  their  young  ones  shall  lie  down 
together :  and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  ox.  And  the  sucking 
child  shall  play  on  the  hole  of  the  asp,  and  the  weaned  child  shall 
put  his  hand  on  the  cockatrice’s  den.  They  shall  not  hurt  nor 


142 


J esusy  Idea 


This  is  certainly  an  entrancing  picture,  and  men  who  are 
enamored  of  a  beautiful  vision  do  not  care  to  have  it  dispelled. 
In  fact,  an  additional  impetus  was  given  to  this  conception  in 
the  time  of  Our  Lord  by  John  the  Baptist.  An  unmis¬ 
takable  part  of  his  prophecy  was  that  One  should  come  to 
set  up  the  long-awaited  Kingdom,  “Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand, 
and  he  will  thoroughly  purge  his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat 
into  his  garner:  but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquench¬ 
able  fire”  (St.  Mt.  4:12).  Thus  the  Kingdom  of  God  was 
to  be  immaculate.  This  opinion,  indeed,  is  the  background  of 
the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  the  Drag-Net.  In  mercy, 
however,  Jesus  anticipates  the  future  and  dispels  the  Jewish 
illusion.  To  be  forewarned  is  to  be  forearmed.  Had  He 
left  the  Apostles  to  face  the  conditions  which  would  soon  con¬ 
front  them,  without  any  adequate  preparation,  the  violent  con¬ 
trast  beween  their  expectation  and  the  reality  might  have  proved 
disastrous  to  themselves  and  to  their  cause.  Hence,  these 
parables  are  also  the  faithful  wounds  of  a  friend. 

With  the  general  features  of  the  parables,  the  Jews  were 
quite  familiar.  The  incidents  were  not  supposititious.  All  knew, 
for  instance,  of  the  “bearded  Darnel”  (Lolium  temulentum), 
a  pernicious  grass  growing  everywhere,  which,  in  the  blade, 
could  not  be  distinguished  from  the  wheat,  but  only  mani¬ 
fested  its  noxious  presence  when  the  ear  appeared.  Or  perhaps, 
as  some  thinks  the  tare  was  not  “the  bearded  darnel,”  but 
“creeping  wheat”  ( Trilicun  repens ),  which  sends  its  pestilential 
roots  stealthily  under  the  earth  until  they  intertwine  with  the 
roots  of  the  wheat.  Edersheim  tells  us  that  these  tares  were 
regarded  as  degenerate  wheat  by  the  Orientals,  and  suggested 
to  the  Jewish  mind  an  idea  current  in  Rabbinism:  “the  ground 
had  been  guilty  of  fornication  before  the  Judgment  of  the 
Flood,  so  that  when  wheat  was  sown,  tares  sprang  up.”  Nor 
were  the  circumstances  of  the  sowing  imaginary.  Such  instances 
of  malicious  mischief  were  not  unknown  among  the  Jews. 
Even  Rome  was  compelled  to  legislate  against  similar  practices. 
Travelers  also  find  this  form  of  vengeance  in  India  to-day, 
and  instances  of  evicted  tenants  resorting  to  such  measures  come 
to  us  from  Ireland  within  recent  years. 

destroy  in  all  thy  holy  mountain :  for  the  earth  shall  be  full  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea”  (Isa.  11:1-9). 


The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom 


143 


The  intent  of  the  first  of  the  parables  was  not  so  apparent, 
however,  as  its  features.  A  dim,  unconscious  understanding  of 
its  meaning  was  present,  perhaps;  at  any  rate,  a  sufficient  im¬ 
pression  had  been  made  by  the  recital  to  cause  the  disciples  to 
ask  for  an  interpretation,  when  the  privacy  of  a  dwelling  gave 
opportunity.  “Declare  unto  us  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the 
field ?”  (St.  Mt.  13:36).  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  two 
parables  which  more  pointedly  violated  the  current  Jewish 
expectation  than  any  others,  were  those  anxiously  inquired 
about  by  the  disciples,  and  selected  by  Our  Lord  for  interpre¬ 
tation — the  Sower,  and  the  Tares. 

Jesus’  interpretation  of  this  parable  is  as  follows:  “He  an¬ 
swered  and  said  unto  them:  He  that  soweth  the  good  seed  is 
the  Son  of  Man;  the  field  is  the  world;  the  good  seed  are 
the  children  of  the  Kingdom ;  but  the  tares  are  the  children  of 
the  wicked  one;  the  enemy  that  soweth  them  is  the  devil;  the 
harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  the  reapers  are  the  angels. 
As  therefore  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burned  in  the  fire;  so 
shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  world.  The  Son  of  Man  shall 
send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom 
all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity;  And  shall 
cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire:  there  shall  be  wailing  and 
gnashing  of  teeth.  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the 
sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear, 
let  him  hear”  (St.  Mt.  13:37-44). 

Now,  the  meaning  of  the  parable  becomes  clear.  It  is  the 
rude  awakening  from  a  sweet  dream.  The  parable  refutes 
the  idea  of  the  immaculate  character  of  the  Kingdom.  Not¬ 
withstanding  the  presence  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  among  men, 
the  world  will  remain  for  some  time  the  harvest  field  of  good 
and  bad.  The  Son  of  Man  and  Satan  alike  will  sow  seed 
and  contend  for  the  harvest,  striving  for  the  fruitage  of  the 
world  at  large,  and  of  the  individual  life.  And  so  cunning 
will  Satan  be  in  his  sowing  that  it  will  be  impossible  for  some 
time  to  differentiate  the  children  of  the  devil  from  the  children 
of  the  Kingdom.  However,  when  the  fruit  appears,  they  become 
distinguishable.  “By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  Be¬ 
ing  distinguished,  consternation  and  surprise  ensue.  This  soon 
develops  into  a  keen  desire  to  eradicate  the  Tares.  Force  seems 
to  be  the  only  available  means.  They  must  be  pulled  up! 


144 


Jesus 9  Idea 


But  Jesus  says — No!  That  would  be  most  unwise.  For  while 
you  uproot  the  Tares,  the  Wheat  is  likely  to  be  uprooted.  “Let 
both  grow  together.”  At  the  harvest  time,  the  separation  will 
be  made,  with  absolute  justice,  and  injury  to  none  save  the 
Tares.  This,  indeed,  was  the  usual  custom.  “The  allusion  in 
the  parable  is  in  substantial  accord  with  modern  custom  in  the 
East,  which  is  to  leave  the  cleaning  of  the  fields  until  the  grain 
is  well  advanced  toward  the  harvest,  and  can  be  readily  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  all  other  plants.  Then  the  women  and  chil¬ 
dren  go  into  the  fields  and  weed  them  out,  so  that  an  Oriental 
grain  farm  in  harvest  time  is  a  model  of  cleanness  and  beauty.” 

In  this  parable,  then,  the  disciples  were  brought  face  to 
face  with  reality.  If  the  Kingdom’s  analogy  was  growth , 
it  must  be  subject  to  the  laws  and  the  vicissitudes  of  growth: 
it  must  suffer  from  zueeds  and  tares.  Indeed,  even  as  the 
Master  spoke,  this  was  the  present  character  of  the  Kingdom. 
The  opening  words  of  the  parable  indicate  this.  They  are  not, 
“The  Kingdom  will  be  like,”  or  “The  Kingdom  is  like,”  in 
an  indefinite  sense.  In  the  Greek  of  the  original,  they  are 
“The  Kingdom  of  God  has  become  like  ”  i.  e.,  the  Kingdom  was 
already  fulfilling  the  conditions  of  the  parable.1  Jesus,  indeed, 
was  giving  His  personal  experience  and  observation.  There 
were  already  tares  with  the  wheat. 

While  the  meaning  of  this  parable  is  apparently  obvious, 
around  it  have  waged  some  of  the  fiercest  conflicts  of  Christen¬ 
dom.  Two  points  present  difficulty.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
“the  field  is  the  world”?  What  is  the  significance  of  Jesus’ 
prohibition  against  uprooting  the  tares?  Let  us  consider  the 
words  “the  field  is  the  world.”  In  interpretations  of  the 
parable,  these  words  are  usually  minimized,  if  not  ignored. 
They  are  made  to  refer  to  the  Christian  Church,  and  the 
burden  of  the  parable  becomes  that  within  the  Church  both  bad 
and  good  men  will  be  found.  Opposed,  however,  to  this  in¬ 
terpretation  stands  the  unequivocal  declaration  of  Jesus — “the 
field  is  the  world.”  If  words  mean  anything,  the  borders  of 
the  Church  are  overstepped  here,  and  the  conception  of  the 
parable  becomes  world-wide.  It  is  sometimes  asserted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  it  would  have  been  stupid  to  narrate  such  a  parable 
to  remind  the  disciples  of  the  existence  of  good  and  bad  men 

1  The  Aorist  tense,  w/Aoubdr),  is  used. 


The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom 


145 


in  the  world,  a  fact  which  they  well  knew,  while  it  was  sensible 
to  teach  of  their  presence  in  the  Church,  a  fact  which  they 
would  not  appreciate.  This,  of  course,  implies  an  acquaintance 
with  the  idea  of  “the  Church”  which  as  yet  was  wholly  foreign 
to  the  disciples.  Further,  we  are  told  that  “the  world”  here 
simply  indicates  the  extensive  character  of  the  Kingdom.  This, 
however,  is  not  convincing. 

Let  us  remember  one  fact  and  we  shall  have  no  difficulty. 

A  great  need  of  the  disciples,  if  not  their  greatest  need,  was 
to  learn  that  the  world,  even  with  the  Kingdom  of  God  pres¬ 
ent  in  it,  (“the  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand”),  was  not 
to  present  that  ideal  aspect  with  the  absence  of  all  evil  and  the 
presence  of  all  good  which  they  expected.  With  the  advent  of 
Christ,  Satan  had  indeed  fallen  as  lightning  from  heaven, 
and  the  power  of  evil  had  been  broken,  and  all  power  in  heaven 
and  in  earth  given  unto  the  Son  of  Man  (St.  Lu.  10:18)  ;  yet, 
because  the  rule  of  God  over  the  world  and  men  was  to  be 
voluntary  and  a  gradual  growth,  indefinitely  and  until  God’s 
own  appointed  time,  would  evil  mingle  with  the  good,  the 
children  of  the  Kingdom  with  the  children  of  the  Devil.  Jesus 
meant  exactly  what  He  said:  “the  field  is  the  world.”  Of 
course,  if  this  condition  is  true  of  the  world  at  large,  it  is 
also  true  of  the  Church.  The  principle  is  general :  the  applica¬ 
tion  to  the  Church  is  secondary.  Further,  a  casual  glance 
at  the  parable  will  show  that  in  the  implied  judgment,  far 
more  than  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  Church  is  indicated: 
it  is  unmistakably  a  world  judgment. 

This  conception,  however,  not  only  contradicted  prevalent 
Jewish  opinion,  but  it  also  ran  counter  to  one  of  the  most 
ineradicable  convictions  of  the  human  heart.  That  anything 
with  which  God  has  to  do,  should  contain  an  admixure  of  evil 
is  apparently  beyond  the  comprehension  of  the  human  mind.  If 
this  is  God’s  world,  why  should  evil  be  in  it?  Because  evil 
is  present,  some  conclude  that  it  is  not  God’s  world.  Thus,  in 
the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  the  Drag-Net,  we  stand  face 
to  face  with  the  mystery  of  evil:  the  mystery  which  has 
defied  solution,  and  which  will  probably  remain  insoluble,  until 
all  things  shall  become  clear.  Jesus  certainly  gives  no  solution 
of  the  problem;  He  simply  seeks  to  bring  good  out  of  evil. 
Evil  to  Him  is  not  a  mystery  to  be  solved,  but  a  fact  to  be 


146 


Jesus'  Idea 


reckoned  with. 

But  how  shall  it  be  reckoned  with,  especially  as  it  is  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  lives  of  men?  The  parable  presents  this  subject  for 
consideration.  Shall  the  tares  be  weeded  out?  In  discussing 
this  point,  we  must  note  that  Jesus  gave  no  interpretation  of 
this  feature  of  the  parable,  consequently  we  are  thrown  upon 
our  own  resources,  and  must  form  our  conclusions  from  the 
parable  itself,  without  aid  from  any  suggestions  of  Our  Lord. 
What,  then,  are  our  conclusions?  They  lie  along  these  lines. 

Because  of  the  presence  of  evil  in  the  Kingdom,  mankind 
is  surprised  and  indignant.  This  feature  of  the  parable  is 
eminently  true  of  life.  Indeed,  this  surprise  and  indignation 
is  really  humanity’s  tribute  to  virtue.  It  is  undeniable  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  abnormality  of  present  conditions ;  a  protest  against 
the  permanence  of  these  conditions;  and  an  emphatic  indica¬ 
tion  that  stability  cannot  be  gained  unless  it  is  founded  upon 
right  and  truth,  and  that  such  stability  will  and  must  be  at¬ 
tained  ere  humanity  can  be  content  and  cease  to  be  divinely 
restless.  Now  this  Jesus  did  not  condemn ;  it  w~as  only  when  this 
spirit  would  manifest  itself  in  the  idea  of  separation  and  proceed 
to  the  method  of  force  that  Jesus  intervenes  with  His  prohibi¬ 
tion.  There  was  to  be  no  separation  of  the  wheat  and  the 
tares ;  the  tares  were  not  to  be  uprooted.1 

Mankind,  however,  is  slow  to  learn  this  truth.  The  impa- 

1  Certain  Roman  Catholic  expositors  have  sought  to  break  the 
force  of  the  Master’s  prohibition,  by  declaring  the  command  not 
to  uproot  in  effect  only  when  there  is  danger  of  uprooting  the 
wheat  with  the  tares.  This  is  the  reasoning  of  Thomas  Aquinas; 
while,  according  to  Archbishop  Trench,  Maldonatus  adds  that  in 
the  specific  case,  the  householder  is  to  judge  of  the  existence  of 
such  danger,  and  that  in  as  much  as  the  Pope  now  represents  the 
householder,  the  question:  “Wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  gather  up 
the  tares?”  is  to  be  addressed  to  him,  and  the  subsequent  action  is 
to  be  determined  by  his  answer.  He  urges,  therefore,  that  Roman 
Catholic  princes  imitate  the  zeal  of  the  servants  of  the  parable, 
even  if  such  zeal  at  times  demands  the  restraint  of  the  Pope,  rather 
than  be  guilty  of  the  indifference  to  heresy  and  the  heretic  exhibited 
by  many.  The  unsoundness  of  such  reasoning  is  at  once  apparent. 
It  is  only  one  of  many  illustrations  of  that  externalizing  tendency 
which  vitiates  so  much  of  Roman  Catholic  exegesis.  Such  an 
interpretation  plainly  contradicts  the  spirit  of  the  parable.  It  is 
only  a  lame  apology  for  Rome’s  inquisitorial  methods :  in  other 
words,  it  is  ex  post  facto  interpretation. 


The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom 


147 


tience  of  the  servants,  with  their  idea  of  separation  and  their 
proposition  of  resort  to  force,  is  a  perpetually  recurring  char¬ 
acteristic  of  the  race.  How  large  a  part  it  has  played,  and 
is  playing,  in  the  life  even  of  the  Church  is  evident  at  a  glance. 
Many  to-day,  for  instance,  remain  apart  from  the  Church  be¬ 
cause,  as  they  assert,  there  are  hypocrites  within  it.  No  man, 
indeed,  can  deny  their  existence.  Unfortunately,  Satan  is  one 
of  the  largest  stockholders  in  the  Christian  Church ;  but  this  is 
to  be  expected  after  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  and  men  have 
no  right  to  demand  absolute  perfection  of  the  Church.  It  is 
contrary  to  the  world  principle:  life  is  everywhere  a  parable 
of  the  Tares  and  the  Wheat.  But,  taking  a  wider  view,  we 
see  that  well-nigh  every  schism  among  Christians  has  re¬ 
sulted  from  misguided  zeal  and  an  erroneous  conception  of  duty, 
in  which  the  matter  of  pristine  importance  seemed  to  be  the 
separation  of  the  Wheat  from  the  Tares.  The  aim  has  been 
the  impossible  one  of  founding  an  unalloyed  communion,  in 
which  spirituality  should  have  undisputed  sway  and  faith 
know  no  admixture  of  error.  And  every  schismatic  movement 
has  signally  failed  to  do  that  which  it  set  out  to  do.  Perhaps 
measurably  free  from  impurities  for  awhile,  evil  and  error 
soon  creep  in  to  mar  the  fair  aspect,  and  to  sow  again  the  seeds 
of  dissension  and  strife.  What  is  the  result?  Only  another 
schism,  only  another  attempt,  doomed  to  failure  as  soon  as 
attempted,  to  have  a  pure  communion  morally  or  intellectually. 
The  idea  of  the  servants  is,  in  fact,  the  multiplication  of 
schisms. 

This  parable  is  also,  if  our  judgment  be  correct,  the  con¬ 
demnation  of  heresy-hunting.  The  knowledge  of  God’s  truth, 
no  less  than  the  sovereignty  of  God  is  a  growth,  and  being 
a  growth,  it  must  be  subject  to  the  laws  and  vicissitudes 
of  growth.  Satan  sows  false  ideas,  no  less  readily  than  false 
principles  of  living.  The  world  being  what  it  is,  immorality 
and  falsehood  must  be  intermingled  with  morality  and  truth. 
The  Church  will  also  show  this  lamentable  admixture.  Hence 
it  is  as  foolish  to  expect,  and  as  impossible  to  have,  a  Church 
with  no  intellectual  error,  no  unsoundness  of  faith,  as  it  is  to 
expect  to  have  a  Church  free  from  moral  unsoundness.  In¬ 
tellectual  Tares  will  grow  with  the  Wheat  of  Truth.  And 
men  are  no  more  justified  in  forcibly  eradicating  the  intel- 


148 


Jesus’  Idea 


lectual  Tares,  than  they  are  in  eradicating  the  moral  Tares. 
Indeed,  there  is  no  more  pitiable  spectacle  in  any  age  than 
the  ecclesiastical  blood-hound,  keen  on  the  scent  of  heresy. 
The  spirit  of  the  servants,  however,  is  essentially  the  spirit  of 
the  persecutor  also.  Contrast  this  anxious  care  for  truth, 
with  its  stereotyped  dogmas,  inerrant  councils,  infallible  Popes, 
and  remorseless  Inquisitions,  with  the  sublime  trust  in  truth 
which  characterized  Jesus  as  He  entrusted  the  revelation  of 
Heaven  to  the  tender  mercies  of  men — unsystematized,  un¬ 
stereotyped,  even  unwritten ,  without  council  or  Pope  or  In¬ 
quisition.  Truth  indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  is  self-propagating, 
and  it  perpetually  chants  the  paean  of  victory.  The  preventive 
of  heresy  is  the  affirmation  of  truth ;  the  corrective  of  heresy 
is  the  fuller  affirmation  of  truth.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  cause  of  morality  is  certainly  never  helped  by  the  in¬ 
quisitorial  method ;  the  cause  of  truth  is  always  the  loser  by  it. 
In  fact,  the  endeavor  to  uphold  truth  by  inquisitorial  methods 
indicates  a  loss  of  faith  alike  in  God,  in  humanity  and  in 
truth.  It  is  really  distrust  of  faith;  a  practical  denial  of 
faith — a  doubt  as  to  the  winning  power  of  truth. 

Returning  now  to  the  fundamental  thought  of  this  parable, 
we  see  that  it  gives  insight  into  history  both  Ancient  and 
Modern.  History,  indeed,  is  the  parable  of  the  Tares  and 
the  Wheat.  Every  department  of  human  activity,  also,  serves 
to  illustrate  the  principle  disclosed  in  the  parable.  The  law 
of  the  Tares  and  the  Wheat  is  the  law  of  life,  domestic,  com¬ 
mercial,  social,  political,  and  religious.  Life  everywhere  is  a 
battle  of  ideas,  and  a  struggle  for  ideals.  Yet  this  condition 
will  not  always  prevail.  There  will  be  a  denouement.  There 
will  be  a  harvest.  “Let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest 

To  accentuate  this,  and  to  prevent  the  utter  bewilderment 
and  dejection  of  His  followers  in  His  own,  and  in  every  age, 
Jesus  narrates  the  parable  of  the  Drag-Net.  The  parable 
of  the  Tares  emphasizes  the  present  commingling  of  the  good 
and  the  evil,  and  cautions  against  impatience  and  resort  to 
force  in  attempting  separation.  The  parable  of  the  Drag-Net 
indicates  with  emphatic  promise,  that  a  final  and  thorough 
separation,  if  such  must  be  made,  will  be  made  by  God,  and 
thus  reveals  why  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  man  to  do  this 
is  futile  and  unreasonable.  “Vengeance  is  mine:  I  will 


I 


The  Alloy  of  the  Kingdom  149 

repay,  saith  the  Lord.”  The  very  construction  of  the  parable 
in  its  omissions,  as  well  as  in  its  statements,  indicates  its 
theme:  the  present  admixture,  and  the  future  separation. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  is  like  a  Drag-Net.  The  word  is 
Sagene,  which  means  “a  large  fishing  net,”  used  to  catch  fish 
which  swam  in  shoals.  Similarly,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  cast 
into  the  sea  of  life  and  embraces  humanity,  gathering  in  all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men.  When  the  net  is  full,  and  is 
hauled  up  on  the  shore  of  eternity,  God  will  do  the  work  of 
separation,  which  men  are  so  eager  to  do  here.  Such,  we 
believe,  is  the  interpretation  of  these  two  parables  of  Our  Lord. 

It  only  remains  to  add  that  the  parables  of  the  Tares  and  the 
Drag-Net  are  the  terrible  indictment  of  much  in  life,  and 
of  a  vast  deal  of  ecclesiastical  history.  The  parable  of  the 
Tares,  with  its  theory  of  separation,  is  indeed  the  life-like 
picture  of  the  actual  Church  in  many  ages.  The  Drag-Net 
which  gathers  of  every  kind,  is  the  likeness  of  the  ideal  Church. 
The  former  is  Ecclesiastical  History;  the  latter  should  have 
been  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  practical  truth  of  both 
parables,  however,  is  well  expressed  by  St.  Paul:  “But  in  a  great 
house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver,  but 
also  of  wood  and  of  earth;  and  some  to  honor  and  some  to 
dishonor.”  (St.  Tim.  2:20.) 

At  the  conclusion  of  these  parables,  Jesus,  addressing  His 
auditors,  “saith  unto  them,  Have  ye  understood  all  these 
things?  They  say  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord.  Then  said  He  unto 
them,  Therefore  every  scribe  which  is  instructed  unto  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  is  like  unto  a  man  that  is  a  householder, 
which  bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and 
old”  (St.  Mt.  13:51-52).  Apt,  indeed,  was  the  remark.  As 
they  listened  to  the  Master’s  words,  the  disciples  were  indeed 
bringing  forth  out  of  their  treasure — the  Kingdom  of  God — 
conceptions  and  ideas,  both  new  and  old. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

One  who  has  followed  our  study  thus  far  would  not  expect 
Jesus  to  lend  the  weight  of  His  authority  to  the  popular 
conception  of  the  extent  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Jesus,  in 
fact,  taught  the  universal  character  of  the  Kingdom.  As  soon 
as  this  statement  is  made,  however,  a  well-known  fact  arises 
in  apparent  repudiation.  Jesus,  Himself,  hardly  set  foot  beyond 
the  borders  of  His  country,  and  personally  confined  His  labors 
to  His  countrymen,  while  the  Apostles  imitated  His  example, 
at  least  for  a  time.  This  is  evident  from  Jesus’  own  life; 
from  His  instructions  to  the  disciples  before  their  first  mis¬ 
sionary  tour:  “Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into 
any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not:  but  go  rather  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel”  (St.  Mt.  10:5-6)  ;  and  in 
the  subsequent  conduct  of  the  Apostles  after  their  Master’s 
death. 

These  facts,  however,  do  not  indicate  the  exclusive  or  secta¬ 
rian  character  of  the  Kingdom.  The  precedence  accorded  to  the 
Jews  is  more  easily  explained  upon  other  grounds.  For  in¬ 
stance,  the  time  for  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles  had  not  come. 
Again,  the  great  yearning  love  of  Jesus  for  His  own  people — 
a  love  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  that  borne  toward  all 
mankind — would  also  prompt  such  precedence.  Further,  a 
beginning  had  to  be  made  somewhere.  The  Kingdom  could 
not  be  founded  everywhere  at  once.  Naturally,  then,  the 
soil  of  Judaism  was  the  most  available.  Nor  had  the  Apostles 
as  yet  outgrown  their  national  prejudices  in  measure  sufficient 
to  warrant  the  inauguration  of  a  world-wide  mission.  Their 
knowledge,  too,  and  insight  into  the  nature,  laws  and  opera¬ 
tion  of  the  Kingdom  was  exceedingly  limited;  hence  it  was 
better  for  them  at  the  first  to  proclaim  to  their  countrymen 
with  John  the  Baptist,  the  simple  truth — “the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  at  hand.” 


150 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom  15  i 

The  reason  for  this  precedence,  however,  which  most  strongly 
commends  itself,  is  this.  Israel  as  a  nation  had  been  chosen 
by  God  for  a  specific  work,  as  we  have  seen.  Opportunity 
after  opportunity  had  been  given  for  the  fulfilment  of  this 
mission,  but  the  nation  had  always  proved  a  stubborn  and  a 
stiff-necked  people.  Now  Israel’s  last  opportunity  had  come. 
The  people  had  mistreated  the  servants  of  the  Lord  of  the 
Vineyard;  yet  would  they  not  reverence  His  Son?  (St.  Mt. 
21).  God  is  patient  with  nations,  as  well  as  with  individuals, 
giving  them  many  chances,  and  overlooking  much  obduracy. 
Will  not  the  nation  at  last  awaken  and  respond?  To  give  the 
nation  ample  opportunity  was  the  purpose  of  Jesus’  three  vigor¬ 
ous,  carefully  planned  and  systematic  preaching  tours  through¬ 
out  the  land.  The  Jews  were  to  be  converted,  if  possible;  then 
they  as  a  people  were  to  convert  the  world.  They  were  to 
become  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy — “a  light  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles  **  Thus  a  far  more  effective  agency  would  be  wielded 
for  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  than  the  labors,  however 
zealous,  of  individual  men.  But  this  hope  was  disappointed. 
The  parables  of  the  Vineyard  and  of  the  Marriage  of  the 
King’s  Son  were  prophetic  of  truth.  Human  nature  will  dwell 
rather  upon  the  thought  of  election  than  of  vocation,  of  privilege 
than  of  duty,  of  self  than  of  others.1 

Notwithstanding  the  precedence  of  the  Jew,  however,  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  in  the  view  of  Jesus,  was  “universal  in 
design  and  scope.”  We  have  His  most  explicit  testimony 
that  the  Kingdom  would  know  no  territorial  or  racial  limita¬ 
tions.  If  we  may  believe  Saint  Luke,  this  catholicity  of  sym¬ 
pathy  manifested  itself  at  the  very  outset  of  Jesus’  career. 
Upon  delivering  the  Inaugural  Address  at  Nazareth,  the 
Master  became  convinced  that  “no  prophet  is  accepted  in  his 
own  country.”  He  was  comforted  in  the  thought,  however, 

1  That  the  precedence  of  the  Jew  was  seemly  and  fitting,  and  in 
line  with  St.  Paul’s  subsequent  saying,  “To  the  Jew  first,  and  also 
to  the  Greek!”  (Rom.  1:16)  is  evident  from  Jesus’  own  words.  In 
St.  Mt.  8:12,  Jesus  calls  the  Jews  “Sons  of  the  Kingdom,”  while 
St.  Mk.  21 143  shows  the  priority  accorded  to  the  Jews:  “Therefore 
the  Kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from  you,  and  given  to 
a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.”  While  this  passage 
indicates  Israel’s  precedence,  it  is  also  the  death-warrant  of  exclusive 
and  sectarian  hopes. 


152 


Jesus’  Idea 


that  a  prophet  would  be  received  outside  His  own  land,  and 
cited  in  support  of  His  contention  the  reception  of  Elijah  by 
the  widow  of  Sidonian  Sarepta,  and  Elisha’s  cure  of  the  leprosy 
of  the  Syrian  Naaman  (St.  Lu.  4:25-27;  I  Ki.  17;  II  Ki.  5). 
This  incident  also  serves  to  show  the  temper  of  the  Jews  in 
regard  to  the  overstepping  of  the  accepted  national  limitations 
of  the  Kingdom.  “And  all  they  in  the  synagogue,  when  they 
heard  these  things,  were  filled  with  wrath,  and  rose  up,  and 
thrust  him  out  of  the  city,  and  led  him  unto  the  brow  of 
the  hill  whereon  their  city  was  built,  that  they  might  cast 
him  down  headlong.” 

The  universal  sympathy  of  Jesus  is  also  indicated  in  His 
attitude  toward  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman,  notwithstanding 
the  singularity  of  its  mode  of  expression,  and  in  His  willing¬ 
ness  to  converse  with  the  woman  of  Samaria.  Racial  limita¬ 
tions  are  also  distinctly  transcended  in  the  teaching  of  St. 
Matthew  8:ii-i2.1  One  of  the  greatest  privileges  accompany¬ 
ing  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  according  to  Jewish  thought, 
was  “participating  in  splendid  festive  entertainments  along 
with  the  patriarchs  of  the  nation.”  This  thought  was  the  source 
of  immense  satisfaction  to  the  Jew,  while  it  was  made  to  militate 
against  the  Gentiles,  being  understood  in  this  sense:  “In  the 
future  world  (God  said)  I  will  spread  a  great  table  for  you, 
which  the  Gentiles  shall  see  and  be  ashamed.”  In  contradis¬ 
tinction  to  this,  Jesus  declares  that  many  Gentiles  will  become 
believers,  and  will  have  part  in  the  joyous  happiness  of  the 
patriarchs  of  old,  while  those  who  apparently  have  every 
right  to  the  feast,  shall  be  in  the  darkness  “which  is  outside  the 
(illuminated)  banqueting  hall  and  in  despair.” 

Plain  hints  as  to  the  universality  of  the  Kingdom  are  found 
also  in  the  wide-extending  branches  of  the  parable  of  the 
Mustard  Seed,  and  in  the  parable  of  the  Drag-Net,  which  is 
thrown  not  only  around  one  nation  as  heretofore,  but  around 
all  peoples,  and  gathers  “fish”  of  every  kind  and  character.  The 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  also  has  the  note  of  universality. 

1  “And  I  say  unto  you,  that  many  shall  come  from  the  East  and 
the  West,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac  and  Jacob 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall 
be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness :  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnash¬ 
ing  of  teeth.” 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 


153 


“Who  is  my  neighbor?”  asks  the  disputatious  lawyer.  “Every 
one  whom  you  can  serve,”  replies  Jesus.  Humanity  is  to 
measure  its  opportunity  for  service  only  by  man’s  need  of 
service.  The  satirical  rebuke  of  Jewish  reasoning  as  it  is 
revealed  in  this  parable  in  the  unsympathetic  attitude  of  the 
priest  and  the  Levite,  professional  and  “ordained”  religionists, 
and  the  exaltation  of  the  charity  of  the  unorthodox  Samaritan, 
was  a  stinging  blow  to  Pharisaic  religion,  and  exhibited  from 
the  Jewish  standpoint  a  most  dangerous  latitude  and  laxity. 
Truly,  the  independence  of  Jesus  was  marvelous. 

Full  of  interest  also  is  the  visit  of  certain  Greeks  to  Jesus 
during  the  sad  week  of  the  Crucifixion  (St.  Jno.  12:20-22). 
Their  coming,  Jesus  regarded  as  a  kind  of  first  fruits  of  the 
rich  harvest  which  He  was  to  gather  beyond  the  borders 
of  Israel.  His  joy  and  His  words,  especially  the  impressive 
and  closing  declaration,  are  significant:  “I,  if  I  be  lifted  up 
from  the  earth  will  draw  all  men  unto  me”  (vs.  32).  Worthy 
of  note  also  are  the  words  spoken,  when  anointed  with  the 
very  precious  ointment  by  Mary  at  Bethany  (St.  Mt.  26:6-12)  : 
“Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Wheresoever  this  gospel  shall  be 
preached  in  the  whole  world,  there  shall  also  this,  that  this 
woman  hath  done,  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her.” 

These  incidental  references  of  a  busy  life,  however,  ulti¬ 
mately  merge  into  broad  and  explicit  declarations.  Consider,  for 
instance,  the  words  of  the  Great  Commission :  “Go  ye  there¬ 
fore,  and  teach  all  nations ,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you”  (St.  Mt.  28:19).  These  words  are  also  important: 
“But  ye  shall  receive  power,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you,  and  we  shall  be  my  witnesses  both  in  Jerusalem,  and 
in  all  Judea,  and  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth”  (Acts  1:8).  Other  references  might  be  cited,  but 
these  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  Kingdom  in  Jesus’  thought 
was  unlimited  territorially  and  racially.  While  a  precedence 
was  accorded  to  the  Jews,  the  restriction,  as  had  been  the  in¬ 
tention  with  Israel  of  old,  was  but  the  prelude  to  universalism. 

This  is  not  all,  however.  All  social  barriers  also  were  to 
fall  before  the  Kingdom.  This  the  Jews  simply  could  not 
understand.  Caste  held  high  carnival  among  them.  While 


154 


Jesus’  Idea 


the  nation  as  a  whole  was  the  aristocracy  of  God,  the  Phari¬ 
sees  were  an  aristocracy  within  an  aristocracy.  The  Jews,  in¬ 
deed,  floundered  perpetually  among  fallacious  distinctions,  ever 
drawing  the  cords  where  they  ought  not,  and  failing  to  tighten 
them  where  they  ought.  The  Kingdom  of  God,  however,  as 
it  was  presented  by  Jesus,  repudiated  this  conventionality 
totally.  It  was  not  intended  alone  for  those  esteeming  them¬ 
selves  the  “unco  guid”  or  the  “rigidly  righteous” :  all  humanity 
could  enter  its  portals.  The  door  was  open  wide.  Indeed, 
when  the  Kingdom  graciously  received  Levi,  the  publican, 
Magdalene  the  harlot,  and  the  dying  thief,  the  death  of  class 
distinctions  and  prejudices  was  signified  so  far  as  the  Kingdom 
of  God  was  concerned.  This  fact  is  astounding,  not  only  in  its 
indication  of  the  universality  of  the  Kingdom,  but  from  the 
unmistakable  hint  which  Jesus  gave,  that  among  the  outcast 
and  the  fallen  the  Kingdom  would  find  its  most  propitious  soil, 
and  reap  its  richest  harvest.  Why  Jesus  regarded  such  per¬ 
sons  as  the  more  propitious  soil  is  seen  in  St.  Luke  7 136-48,  and 
especially  in  the  words:  “Her  sins,  which  are  many,  are 
forgiven ;  for  she  loved  much :  but  to  whom  little  is  forgiven, 
the  same  loveth  little !’ 

Jesus,  indeed,  always  manifested  keen  interest  in  the  un¬ 
desirable  classes.  In  Matthew’s  house,  He  seems  to  have 
attended  a  feast  of  publicans  and  sinners,  which  was  arranged 
especially  that  He  might  meet  with  them  (St.  Lu.  5:29). 
H  is  conduct  in  this  respect  often  gave  rise  to  scandal.  The 
questionable  “respectability”  and  “orthodoxy”  of  the  day  anx¬ 
iously  inquired,  “How  is  it  that  he  eateth  and  drinketh  with 
sinners?”  (St.  Mk.  2:15-17),  and  contemptuously  denominated 
Him  “the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,”  and  “a  wine-bibber 
and  a  glutton.”  Happily,  however,  for  truth’s  sake,  Jesus 
treated  the  current  conventionality  with  supreme  disdain.  Yet 
there  was  nothing  of  narrowness  in  His  sympathies.  He 
dined  with  the  influential  Pharisee  (St.  Lu.  7:37)  upon  invita¬ 
tion,  as  readily  as  with  the  publican,  showing  that  if  He  had  no 
prejudice  against  the  outcast,  He  entertained  no  demagogic 
hatred  of  the  rich  and  well-to-do.1 

xThe  distinctness  with  which  Jesus  taught  the  removal  of  all 
social  barriers  to  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  is  fully  revealed  in  the 
parable  and  discourse  recorded  in  St.  Luke  14:12-24. 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 


155 


Our  conclusion  as  to  the  universality  of  the  Kingdom  has 
now  been  reached  after  consideration  of  the  explicit  teaching  of 
Jesus.  It  is  equally  evident,  however,  in  His  implicit  teach- 
ing.  A  priori  reasoning  here  is  as  effective  as  a  posteriori 
reasoning.  The  universality  of  the  Kingdom  inheres,  indeed, 
in  the  nature  of  both  God  and  man.  One  great  outstanding 
fact  of  Jesus’  teaching  is  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  In  common 
with  mankind  He  believed  in  God,  although  His  idea  of  God 
was  not  the  common  idea  of  His  age,  nor  is  it  the  popular  idea 
to-day.  Indeed,  the  immense  superiority  of  Jesus’  conception 
is  only  realized  when  contrasted  with  the  conceptions  of  His 
contemporaries.  While  the  intelligence  of  Rome  was  divided 
in  allegiance  between  atheism  and  pantheism,  which  alike  repre¬ 
sented  violent  reactions  from  unworthy  ideas  of  Deity,  the 
populace  mocked  the  rites  of  their  ancestral  religion,  and 
attributed  to  the  Gods  the  licentiousness  and  vulgar  amours 
of  men.  Out  of  this  hideous  confusion  arose  the  tendency  to 
deify  the  emperors — the  most  potent  representatives  of  power 
then  within  the  ken  of  man.  Thus  was  Augustus  deified  by 
decree  of  the  Roman  Senate.  The  worship  of  the  Emperor,  in¬ 
deed,  soon  became  the  universal  worship  of  the  Empire.  Tem¬ 
ples,  with  statues  of  the  new-found  God,  were  erected  in  Gaul, 
Spain,  Africa,  Egypt,  Palestine  and  Greece,  where,  through 
priesthoods  and  an  elaborate  cultus,  subjects  paid  divine  honors 
to  the  God  of  the  world.  Yet  this  God  himself  might  be  the 
victim  of  a  superstition  as  base  as  that  which  compelled  Tiberius 
at  the  sound  of  thunder,  to  seek  refuge  in  a  crown  of  laurel 
because  “it  was  denied  that  this  kind  of  leaf  was  ever  touched 
by  lightning,”  or  which  saw  a  mighty  Caesar,  flushed  with  vic¬ 
tory,  pitiably  repeating  a  magical  formula  against  a  feared 
Nemesis,  upon  entering  his  chariot.  The  background  offered 
for  Jesus’  idea  of  God  by  the  Gentile  world  was  dark  indeed. 

The  solitary  oasis  in  this  desert  of  infidelity  and  supersti¬ 
tion  was  found  among  the  most  abject  of  peoples  and  despised 
of  races.  The  Jew  in  Palestine  and  in  the  little  Synagogue 
which  soon  appeared  wherever  he  had  gone  voluntarily,  or  had 
been  carried  a  captive,  notwithstanding  the  excrescences  of 
Pharisaism  and  Sadduceeism,  presented  to  the  world  in  the 
translucent  pages  of  his  Scriptures  the  idea  of  a  God  who  was 
primarily  One  and  a  Person;  so  august  as  to  defy  representa- 


156 


Jesus’  Idea 


tion;  Omnipotent  and  Omniscient;  Eternal,  and  in  nature  of 
Transcendent  Purity,  the  inveterate  enemy  of  sin;  who  had 
selected  a  solitary  nation  of  the  earth  to  represent  Him  to  the 
peoples  of  the  earth.  Such,  in  brief,  was  the  Jewish  idea  of 
God.  Now  all  that  was  true  in  the  Jewish  conception,  Jesus 
borrowed,  and  upon  it  reared  the  imposing  superstructure  of 
His  own  idea.  It  was  His  distinctive  contribution,  however, 
which  gave  to  the  idea  a  conquering  power,  never  possible  to 
the  Jewish  conception.  This  contribution  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  words,  “God  is  Father And  to  understand  the  meaning 
of  this  we  must  interpret  it  as,  “God  is  Love.” 

The  Jews  recognized  the  Fatherhood  of  God  chiefly  in  two 
distinct  senses.  He  was  a  Father  in  the  sense  of  Creator  or 
Progenitor.  He  was  also  a  Father  in  that  He  was  interested 
in,  and  loved  Israel,  and,  in  later  times,  especially  her  King. 
This  conception,  however,  fell  far  short  of  the  splendid  view 
entertained  by  Jesus.  In  His  thought,  God  was  not  only  the 
Infinite  Creator,  but  the  Infinite  Father  who  was  keenly  con¬ 
cerned  about  all  creation  and  full  of  love  for  all  things.  With 
Jesus,  this  passionate  regard  of  God  extended  to  even  the  small¬ 
est  things:  the  grass  of  the  fields,  the  birds  of  the  air.  “Be¬ 
hold  the  fowls  of  the  air:  for  they  sow  not,  neither  do  they 
reap,  nor  gather  into  barns;  yet  your  heavenly  Father  feedeth 
them”  (St.  Mt.  6:26;  cf.  28,  30  vs.).1  If  God’s  solicitude  for 
the  trivial  is  so  manifest,  we  may  expect  a  most  pronounced 
regard  for  Man.  “Are  ye  not  much  better  than  they?”  asks 
Jesus,  in  fact,  of  the  disciples  after  describing  God’s  love  for 
the  fowls  of  the  air  (St.  Mt.  6:26).  It  was  formerly  de¬ 
bated  with  much  heat  whether  God  was  the  Father  of  all  men 
in  the  sense  of  love,  or  only  of  Christians,  i.e.,  of  those  who 
recognized  their  sonship  and  obeyed  the  Father.  How  this 
question  could  arise,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  in  view  of 
Jesus’  teaching.  That  God  is  the  Universal  Father  is,  indeed, 
an  axiom  of  His  revelation.  Yet  that  this  Fatherhood  does  not 
mean  the  same  thing  to  all  men  is  also  an  integral  part  of 
H  is  truth,  as  the  late  Professor  Bruce  so  admirably  points  out 

1  Science,  to-day,  as  it  follows  the  footsteps  of  the  Creator,  and 
unfolds  more  and  more  the  methods  of  His  thoughtful  providence, 
is  furnishing  data  of  invaluable  assistance  in  justly  appreciating 
this  teaching  of  Jesus. 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 


157 


in  his  book,  “The  Kingdom  of  God.”  An  earthly  father,  in 
fact,  finds  the  fulfilment  of  his  fatherhood  conditioned  in  many 
ways  by  the  bearing  of  his  son.  The  full  love  of  the  parent 
can  only  be  bestowed  upon  a  child  who  in  turn  reciprocates  the 
parental  affection.  Dutiful  sonship  is  a  necessity  to  perfect 
Fatherhood.  Hence  God,  although  the  Father  of  all  men,  can¬ 
not  be  a  Father  to  the  evil  and  to  the  righteous  in  the  same 
degree. 

Professor  Bruce  notes,  however,  that  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
toward  all  men  expends  itself  along  two  distinct  yet  related 
lines  of  affection — regard  for  both  the  temporal  and  the  spirit¬ 
ual  needs  of  man.  His  careful  providence  for  the  temporal 
necessities  of  the  sinner  is  indicated  by  Jesus  in  St.  Matthew 
5 :  45 :  “He  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good, 
and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.”  The  perfec¬ 
tion  of  the  Deity  itself  is  illustrated  in  the  blessing  bestowed 
upon  those  who  curse  Him.  The  solicitude  of  God  over  the 
spiritual  condition  of  the  sinful  man  is  the  preeminent  thought 
of  the  exquisite  parables  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of 
St.  Luke, — verily  a  miniature  Gospel  in  themselves.  The  bur¬ 
den  of  these  parables — the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  and  the 
Lost  Son — may  be  expressed  in  the  words  of  St.  Matthew 
18:  14:  “Even  so  it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven,  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish.”  Sin,  though 
it  be  as  black  as  Hell  itself,  and  as  malodorous,  cannot  sepa¬ 
rate  the  erring  child  from  the  affection  of  the  Heavenly  Parent. 
He  seeks  the  lost,  and  looks  again  and  again  for  the  return 
of  the  wanderer.  The  conduct  of  Our  Lord  also  reveals  the 
affection  of  the  Father-God,  no  less  than  His  words.  Were 
we  deprived  of  the  latter,  we  could  draw  a  just  inference  as 
to  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God  from  the  graciousness  of 
Jesus’  bearing,  His  insight,  and  His  sympathy.1 

1  To  a  dastardly  violation  of  the  shepherding  quality  inherent  in 
true  religion,  we  owe  the  teaching  of  the  Master  about  “The  Good 
Shepherd.”  Incensed  because  a  former  blind  man  had  come  to 
believe  in  the  divine  power  of  the  restorer  of  his  sight,  the 
Pharisees  proceeded  forthwith  to  excommunicate  him.  Jesus,  hear¬ 
ing  of  their  action,  sought  for  the  poor  fellow,  and  comforted  him 
with  the  knowledge  that  He  alone  was  the  door  through  which 
men  could  enter  into  eternal  life;  while  He  unsparingly  condemned 
the  ignorance  of  those  who,  instead  of  seeking  the  spiritual  welfare 


Jesus’  Idea 


158 

The  care  of  God  for  the  temporal  needs  of  the  saints,  or 
children  of  the  Kingdom,  Jesus  sets  forth  at  length  in  a  passage 
which  we  have  already  considered.  Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to 
quote  it,  however.  Even  long  familiarity  with  it  has  not  im¬ 
pressed  its  meaning  upon  Christian  thought.  “Therefore  take 
no  thought,  saying,  What  shall  we  eat?  or,  What  shall  we 
drink?  or,  Wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed?  (for  after  all  these 
things  do  the  Gentiles  seek:)  for  your  heavenly  Father  know- 
eth  that  ye  have  need  of  all  these  things.  But  seek  ye  first 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteousness ;  and  all  these  things 
shall  be  added  unto  you”  (St.  Mt.  6:31-33).  Here,  indeed, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  absolute  promise  that  if  any  person  will 
make  the  sovereignty  of  God  the  sole  aim  in  life,  God  will  at¬ 
tend  to  it  that  food,  drink,  and  raiment  are  had  in  abundance. 
Finally,  the  devotion  of  the  Father  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  the 
child  of  the  Kingdom  is  best  seen  in  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 
the  Infinite  Spirit  coming  into  touch  with  the  finite  spirit  of 
man,  refreshing,  guiding,  developing.  But  more  of  this  anon.1 

In  view  of  this  revelation  of  the  character  of  God,  we  see 
that  the  Kingdom  of  God  must  be  universal  in  aim.  The  God 
of  Jesus  could  be  satisfied  with  nothing  else.  The  universality 
of  the  Kingdom,  however,  is  as  inherent  in  the  nature  of  man 

of  the  man,  turned  him  adrift.  To  this  procedure,  Jesus  opposed 
Himself  as  “The  Door  and  The  Good  Shepherd”  (St.  John  9:10). 

1  That  God  would  not  always  appear  even  to  spiritual  insight  as  a 
Father,  Jesus  well  knew.  He  adverts  to  the  fact  in  the  suggestive 
parables  of  “The  Selfish  Neighbor”  and  “The  Unjust  Judge”  (St. 
Lu.  11:5-13;  18:1-5).  These  parables,  however,  do  not  in  the  least 
impugn  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  They  only  represent  the  manner 
in  which  God  seems  to  act  at  times.  Why  the  Deity  permits  this 
impression,  no  man  can  tell.  Christianity  does  not  answer  wholly 
all  the  questions  in  heaven  and  earth,  yet  it  does  throw  all  needful 
light  upon  them.  Of  course,  the  truthfulness  of  this  idea  of  God 
may  be  denied,  yet  it  is  evident  that  Jesus  claimed  to  give  an 
authoritative  revelation.  “No  man  knows  the  Son,  but  the  Father; 
neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  save  the  Son ,  and  he  to  whom¬ 
soever  the  Son  will  reveal  him”  (St.  Mt.  11:27).  Again:  “Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  Have  I  been  so  long  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou 
not  known  me,  Philip?  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father; 
and  how  sayest  thou  then,  Shew  us  the  Father?  Believest  thou 
not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me?  The  words 
that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself :  but  the  Father  that 
dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works”  (St.  John  14:9-10). 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 


159 


as  in  the  character  of  God. 

Jesus  of  Nazareth,  indeed,  had  the  ability  to  see  things  in 
their  just  proportion.  While  the  world  of  His  day  measured 
the  value  of  man  by  some  accident  of  birth,  genius,  power, 
wealth  or  station,  fastening  its  gaze  upon  the  extroardinary  and 
the  exceptional,  Jesus  measured  the  value  of  man  simply  by  the 
gift  of  being ,  affixing  His  attention  upon  the  ordinary  and  the 
general.1  In  the  thought  of  Jesus,  every  man  was  made  in  the 
image  of  God.  Nothing  more  was  needed  to  dignify  his  na¬ 
ture;  nothing  additional  could  dignify  his  nature.  Although 
stripped  of  every  accident  of  existence,  and  as  naked  as  naked¬ 
ness  itself,  man  was  yet  richly  clothed  with  the  habiliments  of 
Deity.  Each  individual  was  accordingly  of  immense  value. 

Proof  of  this  is  easily  forthcoming.  “What  shall  it  profit 
a  man,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul?” 
or,  as  St.  Luke  says,  “his  own  self?”  “Or  what  shall  a  man  give 
in  exchange  for  his  soul?”  (St.  Mk.  8:  36-37;  St.  Mt.  16:26; 
St.  Lu.  9:25).  Here  the  whole  world  is  weighed  in  the  bal¬ 
ances  against  a  single  human  soul,  and  is  found  wanting.  Con¬ 
sider  again  the  passage  quoted  above,  and  its  context.  “Even  so 
it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  that  one 
of  these  little  ones  should  perish”  (St.  Mt.  18:  14).  Man’s 
value  is  also  apparent  in  such  sayings  as  these:  “The  very  hairs 
of  your  head  are  all  numbered;”  “Ye  are  of  more  value  than 
many  sparrows;”  “How  much  then  is  a  man  better  than  a 
sheep?”  (St.  Mt.  10:30;  12:12).  Especially  important  is 
the  declaration  of  Our  Lord,  found  in  St.  Matthew  5:29-30: 
“If  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it  from 
thee :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should 
perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body  should  be  cast  into  hell. 
And  if  thy  right  hand  offend  thee,  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  from 
thee:  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should 
perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole  body  should  be  cast  into  hell” 
( cf .  St.  Mt.  1 8 :  8-9 ;  St.  Mk.  9 :  43-47 ;  St.  Lu.  12:1 3-2 1 ) . 

This  passage  is  not  to  be  understood  literally,  of  course. 
The  language  is  highly  figurative,  yet  the  more  forceful  because 

1  The  Hebrews  offered  the  only  apparent  exception  to  this  rule. 
Every  Hebrew  was  honored  by  virtue  of  his  birthright.  Yet,  as 
has  been  shown  repeatedly,  “It  was  Hebrew  nature,  rather  than 
human  nature,  which  even  to  him  possessed  intrinsic  grandeur.” 


i6o 


Jesus ’  Idea 


figurative.  The  right  eye  and  hand  represent  what  is  most 
valuable  and  useful.  The  words  “offend  thee”  really  mean 
“cause  thee  to  stumble.”  The  idea  is  that  some  one  is  walking 
in  the  path  of  rectitude,  when  suddenly  something  causes  the 
person  to  stumble  in  his  path,  and  fall  into  wickedness.  “Pluck 
it  out,”  “cut  it  off”  and  “cast  it  from  thee”  are  expressions  of 
decided  action,  and  call  emphatically  for  the  removal  of  the 
cause  of  the  stumbling.  To  interpret  this  language  literally 
would  be  to  obey  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  to  ignore  the  spirit. 
Suppose,  however,  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  we  could  have 
an  eyeless,  footless,  and  handless  humanity,  would  it  be  a  sinless 
humanity?  Would  not  the  heart  still  remain?  And  is  it  not 
out  of  the  heart  that  the  issues  of  life  and  death  proceed?  The 
organs  and  the  senses  of  the  body  are  indeed  God-given,  legiti¬ 
mate,  valuable  and  useful.  Yet  they  may  become  the  organs 
of  guilt,  “the  inlets  of  temptation,  the  outlets  of  surrender.” 

It  is  only  when  we  interpret  this  saying  of  Jesus’  as  a  fig¬ 
ure  of  speech  that  its  significance  really  dawns  upon  us.  The 
eye  means  the  thing  seen,  the  hand,  the  thing  done;  together 
they  represent  perhaps  the  active  and  the  passive  sides  of  our 
nature.  And  Jesus’  thought  is  that  whenever  anything  that 
we  see  or  do  causes  us  to  sin,  it  is  to  be  summarily  renounced. 
This  is  not  that  hideous  caricature  of  Christianity  which  calls 
itself  asceticism,  but  simply  the  necessary  renunciation  of  self 
which  inheres  in  all  true  religion.  It  is  the  Cross  which  wins 
the  Crown.  And  this  willingness  to  suffer  dire  loss  is  profitable 
because  it  ministers  to  man’s  eternal  gain.  Our  minds  are  likely 
to  consider  only  the  present;  Jesus  considers  both  the  present 
and  the  future.  Eternity  is  longer  than  time.  Present  loss  is 
set  over  against  future  gain.  Jesus  is  appealing  for  the  interests 
of  the  higher  life.  Self-indulgence  means  self-destruction. 
Hence  the  emphatic  declaration  of  the  passage:  “Partial  loss 
in  this  world  rather  than  total  loss  in  the  next.”  Could  lan¬ 
guage  more  forcibly  indicate  the  value  of  each  human  soul? 

Such  teaching  and  conduct,  as  we  have  described,  bring 
forcibly  to  light  Jesus’  interest  in  man  simply  as  man.  Riches, 
station,  religion,  and  even  sin,  were  not  considered  primary 
factors  in  determining  individual  worth.  There  was  a  value 
and  an  importance  attached  to  man  simply  as  man.  Human 
society  is  undoubtedly  a  heterogeneous  mass,  and  embraces  “all 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom  161 

sorts  and  conditions  of  men.”  But,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus, 
the  unifying  bond  is  manhood.  The  average  person  to-day — 
even  the  average  Christian,  we  fear — notes  and  dwells  upon  the 
rank  and  the  grades  which  separate  men.  His  whole  view  of 
life,  and  his  conduct  are  conditioned  by  these.  Jesus,  however, 
let  us  remember,  dwelt  solely  upon  the  common  manhood  which 
unites  men.  He  was  the  Incarnation  of  the  Democratic  Spirit. 
With  Him,  in  fact,  this  spirit  was  born  into  the  world  with 
power,  and  through  Him  it  is  transforming  the  world.  His, 
indeed,  was  the  catholicity  of  the  very  sympathies  of  God.  This 
is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  consider  (humanly  speaking) 
the  lowliness  of  His  birth,  and  the  character  of  His  early 
environment — the  carpenter  shop  of  obscure  Nazareth.  While 
such  surroundings  would  usually  beget  sympathy  with  the 
lowly,  they  would  also  mean  distrust,  suspicion,  and  dislike  of 
the  more  favored  classes.  This,  however,  was  not  true  of 
Jesus.  Even  His  bitterest  enemies  recognized  that  He  was  “no 
respecter  of  persons.”  High  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  reputable 
and  disreputable,  were  treated  alike  by  Him,  and  all  simply 
as  men.  The  Church’s  failure — not  theoretical,  but  practical — 
to  imitate  the  Master  in  this  has  been  a  most  important  factor 
in  the  present  alienation  of  the  masses.  When  the  Church 
shall  follow  the  example  of  Jesus,  the  common  people  will 
hear  it  gladly,  as  they  heard  the  Master  of  old.  When  the 
clergy,  indeed,  show  no  greater  respect  for  the  rich  than  the 
poor,  the  great  than  the  humble,  for  the  ecclesiastical  dignitary, 
gowned,  hooded,  bedecked  and  bedizzened,  than  for  the  poorly 
dressed  laboring  man,  and  shall  occupy  the  lofty  and  impreg¬ 
nable  position  of  Jesus,  from  which  they  treat  all  men  with 
that  high  respect  due  to  man ,  even  if  partiality  must  be  shown, 
reverencing  more  highly  the  laborer  than  the  dignitary,  if  his 
manhood  be  of  a  nobler  type,  then  will  the  world  believe  in 
the  Christianity  of  the  Church,  for  it  will  recognize  the  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  Christ.  His  great  assumption  was  that  the  dignity 
of  manhood — the  gift  of  God — was  infinitely  greater  than  any 
earthly  dignity,  religious  or  secular — the  gift  of  men.  This, 
at  least,  was  the  pure  democracy  of  Jesus.  To  the  eternal  shame 
of  the  Church,  be  it  said,  it  is  not  even  in  reasonable  measure 
the  democracy  of  the  Church. 

Jesus’  idea,  indeed,  of  the  essential  value  of  human  nature 


162 


Jesus’  Idea 


in  itself ,  when  stripped  of  all  superadded  honors,  gifts,  and  dig¬ 
nities,  has  always  amazed  mankind.  Indeed,  to  esteem  “a  no¬ 
body”  is  ever  an  offense  in  the  eyes  of  a  Pharisaic  world.  But 
when  honor  and  esteem  are  persisted  in  toward  those  who  are 
stripped  of  even  naked  respectability,  and  clothed  with  the  igno¬ 
miny  of  evil  living,  humanity’s  confusion  becomes  worse  con¬ 
founded.  The  degraded,  the  fallen,  the  outcast  however,  as 
we  have  seen,  were  the  objects  of  Jesus’  pity  and  love.  His 
regard  for  them  is  fully  revealed  in  the  parables  of  the  Lost 
Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  and  the  Lost  Son.  Here  we  see  that 
those  whom  the  Pharisees  thought  a  rubbish  pile  ready  for 
ignition,  Jesus  regarded  as  a  rich  harvest  to  be  reaped.  Indeed, 
their  very  condition  made  a  tremendous  appeal  to  Him.  In 
the  Lost  Sheep,  for  instance,  He  sees  the  folly  and  the  helpless - 
ness  of  the  lost  soul;  in  the  Lost  Coin,  the  utter  uselessness  of 
the  most  useful  of  all  things — money,  when  lost,  is  made  to 
reveal  the  absolute  waste  of  the  lost  life ;  while  in  the  exquisite 
story  of  the  Lost  Son — an  optimistic  biography  of  a  sinner — 
Jesus  discloses  the  self-conscious  misery  and  degradation  of  the 
lost  being.  To  Jesus,  indeed,  humanity  was  splendid,  though 
in  ruins. 

The  surpassing  value  of  human  nature,  however,  has  been 
shown  in  the  preceding  pages  also  in  that  Jesus  regarded  it 
as  the  congenial  soil  for  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He  regarded 
man  as  the  possessor  of  both  a  moral  and  an  intellectual  na¬ 
ture,  which  was  responsive  to  the  deepest  spiritual  truths  of 
God.  His  conduct  toward  man  always  proceeded  upon  the 
presupposition  so  beautifully  expressed  by  Browning: 


‘‘But  friends, 

Truth  is  within  ourselves;  it  takes  no  rise 
From  outward  things,  whate’er  you  may  believe : 
There  is  an  inmost  centre  in  us  all, 

Where  truth  abides  in  fulness;  and  around 
Wall  upon  wall,  the  gross  flesh  hems  it  in, 

This  perfect,  clear  perception — which  is  truth; 

A  baffling  and  perverting  carnal  mesh 
Blinds  it  and  makes  all  error ;  and  ‘to  know.’ 

Rather  consists  in  opening  out  a  way 
Whence  the  imprisoned  splendor  may  escape, 

Than  in  effecting  entrance  for  a  light 
Supposed  to  be  without.” 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom  163 

Preeminently,  however,  is  Jesus’  idea  of  the  dignity  of 
man  seen  in  His  unequivocal  belief  in  man’s  immortality.  He 
said  little  about  this,  it  is  true.  It  is,  nevertheless,  like  His 
belief  in  God,  an  axiomatic  truth  of  His  teaching.  There  was 
no  need  for  special  stress  upon  the  subject,  for  His  countrymen 
believed  in  the  truth — all,  indeed,  except  the  Sadducean  world¬ 
lings — thus  offering  a  striking  contrast  to  the  great  Gentile 
world,  in  which  there  was  such  patent  disbelief,  or  painful 
uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  life  after  death.  Even  a  Herod, 
aroused  by  the  increasing  reputation  of  Jesus,  spoke  of  Him 
as  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead.  On  one  occasion, 
however,  our  Lord  did  express  Himself  unequivocally.  The 
Sadducees,  seeking  to  discredit  the  popular  belief  in  immor¬ 
tality,  ask  Him,  if  a  woman  shall  have  been  married  seven 
times,  to  wThom  shall  she  belong  after  the  resurrection.  Jesus’ 
reply  is  convincing:  “And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  them, 
Do  ye  not  therefore  err,  because  ye  know  not  the  scriptures, 
neither  the  power  of  God?  For  when  they  shall  rise  from 
the  dead,  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
are  as  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven.  And  as  touching  the 
dead,  that  they  rise:  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses, 
how  in  the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob?  He 
is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the  living:  ye  there¬ 
fore  do  greatly  err”  (St.  Mk.  12:24-28). 

This  reply  at  once  rebukes  incredulity  as  to  the  power  of 
God,  and  declares  that  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of 
the  living ,  clearly  implying  that  all  live  unto  Him.  The  un¬ 
belief,  indeed,  which  hesitates  to  accept  a  future  life  for  man 
in  the  face  of  the  marvelous  evidences  of  the  Divine  Power,  dis¬ 
played  in  the  visible  creation,  and  which  is  blind  to  the  impli¬ 
cation  of  their  Scriptures,  is  to  Jesus  absurd,  and  worthy  of 
censure.  Faith,  however,  in  the  immortality  of  man,  even 
though  it  were  unexpressed  by  Jesus,  is  the  essential  presup¬ 
position  of  all  His  teaching.  Without  this  cardinal  truth,  His 
entire  teaching  is  aimless  and  preposterous.  Thus  we  find  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  must  be  universal  in  extent  and  aim,  in 
view  of  the  essential  dignity  of  human  nature,  no  less  than 
in  view  of  the  character  of  God. 

Finally,  the  character  of  the  Kingdom  itself  predicates  its 


164 


Jesus >  Idea 


universality.  Inward  and  spiritual  primarily,  its  extent  is  alone 
conditioned  by  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  similar  qualities. 
The  necessary  qualifications  for  entrance  belong  to  man  simply 
as  man.  External  considerations  have  no  weight.  The  essential 
qualities,  as  we  have  seen,  are  those  of  mind  and  heart  as  set 
forth  in  the  Beatitudes.  These  may  belong  to  the  Greek  as  well 
as  to  the  Jew,  to  the  bond  and  to  the  free,  to  the  uncircumcised 
and  the  circumcised,  to  rich  and  poor,  humble  and  exalted, 
learned  and  unlearned  alike.  This  fundamental  truth  of  the 
Kingdom  has  been  compelled,  however,  to  wage  incessant  war¬ 
fare  against  the  inveterate  national,  racial,  and  class  prejudices 
of  humanity  from  the  beginning.  The  struggle  of  Paul  with 
the  Judaizers  in  the  first  century,  and  the  conduct — honoring 
the  rich  and  neglecting  the  poor — against  which  James  inveighs 
in  his  Epistle,  were  but  the  first  thunderous  tones  of  a  mighty 
battle  which  has  been  in  progress  down  the  centuries.  Even 
to-day  this  concept  of  the  Kingdom  is  to  a  great  extent  but 
a  beautiful  theory  in  our  world,  our  national  and  our  individual 
life.  The  battle  is  by  no  means  won.  The  North  against  the 
South,  the  East  against  the  West,  the  white  man  against  the 
black  man,  the  rich  against  the  poor,  labor  against  capital, 
knowledge  despising  ignorance,  nation  against  nation,  civiliza¬ 
tion  against  barbarism,  Christendom  versus  Heathendom,  amply 
attest  that,  while  much  has  been  accomplished,  much  remains 
to  be  accomplished.  God,  however,  is  no  respecter  of  persons. 
The  Kingdom  is  intended  for  all  men,  and  all  men  are  worthy 
of  the  Kingdom.  Surely  there  is  great  need  to-day  of  that 
sterling  Christian  manhood  which  shall  protest  without  fear 
or  favor  against  the  tendency  in  Church  and  State  which  re¬ 
spects  position  rather  than  humanity — the  tendency  upon  which 
every  tyranny  in  the  State  and  every  despotism  in  the  Church 
has  reared  its  superstructure,  and  by  means  of  which  they  have 
lived. 

There  is,  in  conclusion,  only  one  restriction  upon  the  extent 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God :  the  inability  or  the  unwillingness  of 
the  individual  to  comply  with  the  conditions  imposed  for  en¬ 
trance.  Despite  the  intent  of  the  Kingdom,  it  is  not  universally 
accepted.  When  measured  by  the  ideal  or  goal,  the  results  in¬ 
deed  are  disappointing;  but  when  measured  by  the  humanity 
and  the  civilization  with  which  the  Kingdom  has  had  to  deal, 


The  Extent  of  the  Kingdom 


1 65 


the  results  are  most  encouraging.  While  men  willingly  admit 
that  the  times  are  “out  of  joint,”  while  they  acknowledge  the 
marvelous  harmony  in  which  the  universe  of  God  proceeds; 
while  they  see  that  the  world  of  nature  is  a  sequence  of  laws 
well  ordered  and  harmoniously  followed;  that  everywhere  is 
concord  save  in  the  world  of  man ;  that  the  whole  creation  may 
be  compared  to  a  superb  organ,  mighty  in  size,  perfect  in  con¬ 
struction,  and  exquisite  in  tone,  but  with  a  single  key  out  of 
tune,  which  spoils  the  music  of  the  whole,  yet  they  will  not 
take  the  proper  steps  to  remedy  the  discord.  The  Universe,  the 
world  of  nature,  follow  their  appointed  law:  they  are  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  the  sphere  in  which  His  rule  is  obeyed.  It 
is  not  so,  however,  in  the  world  of  man.  Here  we  have — 

“a  jarring  and  a  dissonant  thing 
Amid  this  general  dance  and  minstrelsy.” 

The  remedy  for  this  vast  discord,  of  course,  is  the  universal 
extension  of  the  Kingdom — the  sovereignty  of  God.  The 
world’s  reception  of  the  Kingdom  alone  prevents  the  universality 
of  the  celestial  harmony.  The  refusal  of  Adam,  however,  is 
still  the  popular  ideal.  Creation  is  a  divided  realm.  Will 
there  ever  be  union?  Will  the  extension  of  the  Kingdom  ever 
be  complete,  and  God  be  the  supreme  and  the  unquestioned 
head? 

Translated  into  terms  of  individuality,  the  question  is,  Who 
will  share  ultimately  in  the  Kingdom  of  God?  Will  all  men 
be  saved,  or  only  some  men?  Will  the  Kingdom  be  entirely 
successful,  or  only  partially  so?  Will  God  rule  over  all  men 
ultimately  by  Love,  or  will  He  be  compelled  to  rule  over  some 
in  an  eternal  hell  by  compulsion?  Questions  of  tragic  impor¬ 
tance  thus  confront  us.  Can  we  answer  any,  or  all  of  them  ? 

It  is  evident  that  Jesus  reveals  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  While  specific  evidence  is  not  wanting,  the 
whole  trend  of  His  thought  and  teaching  is  in  this  direction. 
St.  Paul  truly  represents  His  Master  in  the  glowing  language 
of  I  Cor.  15:24-29,  and  Eph.  1:10.  The  Kingdom  will  tri¬ 
umph.  But  how  and  to  what  extent ?  are  the  crucial  questions. 
Will  mankind  submit  to  the  sovereignty  of  God?  If  not,  what 
will  be  the  fate  of  the  rebellious?  Several  theories  have  been 
set  forth  to  solve  this  problem.  Universalism,  the  common  view 


1 66 


Jesus’  Idea 


of  the  ultimate  separation  of  the  good  and  the  evil,  and  Condi¬ 
tional  Immortality  alike  offer  their  program.  The  very  con¬ 
trariety  of  these  views  however,  with  the  facts  upon  which 
they  are  based,  indicates,  we  think,  the  impossibility  of  arriv¬ 
ing  at  any  solution  of  our  problem  which  possesses  certainty  or 
even  probability.  Jesus  did  not  answer  our  question,  and  in¬ 
volved  in  its  determination  are  the  Love  of  God  and  the  Free¬ 
will  of  Man.  Who  can  say  what  these  may  ultimately  accom¬ 
plish? 

“So  I  read 

The  constant  action  of  celestial  powers 
Mixed  into  waywardness  of  mortal  men, 

Whereof  no  sage’s  eye  can  trace  the  course 
And  see  the  close. 

Fruitful  result,  O  sage! 

Certain  uncertainty.” 


CHAPTER  XII 


THE  TIME  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

In  the  popular  belief  of  to-day,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
regarded  almost  exclusively  as  future  in  time.  An  assertion 
of  the  present  existence  of  the  Kingdom  on  the  earth  would, 
indeed,  provoke  a  smile  of  derision  in  many  quarters;  for  the 
advent  of  the  Kingdom  is  popularly  identified  with  the  end 
of  the  world.  The  present  life  is  to  give  place  to  the  future, 
or  eternal  life,  and  that  will  be  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This 
view,  however,  is  extremely  defective,  and  overlooks  the  funda¬ 
mental  import  of  Christianity.  Numerous  evils,  also,  are  the 
offspring  of  this  conception.  The  Christian  religion  is  emascu¬ 
lated.  The  world  that  is,  and  the  world  that  is  to  come,  are 
widely  separated  in  thought.  The  religious  and  the  secular 
are  divorced.  Men  value  the  future  life,  and  despise,  or  mini¬ 
mize,  the  present  life.  We  have  Monasticism  perverting  Ca¬ 
tholicism,  and  Asceticism  stifling  Christianity.  The  social  and 
the  altruistic  aspect  of  the  Christian  religion  is  sacrified  to  the 
individual,  the  egoistic  aspect.  The  world  is  flooded  with  so- 
called  Christian  societies,  whose  origin,  aim,  and  end  is  selfish¬ 
ness.  “The  Imitation  of  Christ”  of  Thomas  A.  Kempis,  with 
its  emphasis  of  personal  and  ignoring  of  social  religion,  is  the 
ideal  of  thousands,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Christianity  of 
Christ.  In  fact,  the  inevitable  outcome  of  this  idea  is  the 
degradation  of  Christianity  to  the  veritable  level  of  an  Insur¬ 
ance  Society,  which  simply  issues  policies  in  favor  of  Heaven. 
If,  however,  this  view  of  “the  time”  of  the  Kingdom  is  inade¬ 
quate,  what  are  we  to  believe  about  this  subject?  To  know  the 
truth,  we  must  consult  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

A  cursory  glance,  however,  at  the  New  Testament  seems 
to  reveal  glaring  inconsistency  and  contradiction  in  Our  Lord’s 
teaching.  Jesus  speaks,  apparent^,  of  the  Kingdom  now  as 
present  in  time,  and  again  as  future.  This  fact,  indeed,  has 
given  rise  to  several  theories.  It  is  contended  by  some  that, 

167 


1 68 


Jesus’  Idea 


in  His  early  ministry,  Jesus  expected  the  sudden  and  miraculous 
inauguration  of  the  Kingdom,  and  that  later  He  was  made  per¬ 
force  to  see  that  the  Kingdom  could  come  only  after  a  long 
period  of  development.  Others  maintain  that  He  always  con¬ 
ceived  of  the  Kingdom  as  future >  and  that  whatever  reference 
there  is  to  it  in  His  teaching  as  present  is  merely  anticipatory. 
These  explanations,  however,  are  not  convincing.  That  Jesus 
spoke  of  the  time  of  the  Kingdom  in  terms  which  seem  to  be 
inconsistent  and  contradictory  is  undeniable,  but  that  His  teach¬ 
ing  is  inconsistent  is  by  no  means  evident.  On  the  contrary,  He 
spoke  of  the  Kingdom  as  both  present  and  future,  because  the 
very  nature  of  the  Kingdom  demanded  that  He  do  so.  This 
will  become  apparent  as  we  proceed.  Let  us  now,  however,  con¬ 
sider  the  testimony  for  the  present  character  of  the  Kingdom. 

While  the  Jews  were  utterly  unable  to  see  that  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God,  so  loudly  heralded  by  John,  and  by  Jesus,  was  at 
hand,  inasmuch  as  their  conception  of  the  Kingdom  effectually 
blinded  their  eyes,  yet  the  Kingdom  was  at  hand.  “The  King¬ 
dom  of  God  is  among  you,”  was  Jesus’  reply  to  the  Pharisees, 
who  asked,  “when  the  Kingdom  of  God  cometh?”  (St.  Lu. 
17:21).  “The  Kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon  you,”  was 
His  suggestion  also  to  the  Pharisees,  who  accused  Him  of  cast¬ 
ing  out  devils  through  Beelzebub,  their  prince  (St.  Lu.  11 :  20). 
He  also  speaks  of  the  Kingdom  as  being  taken  by  violence.1 
The  present  character  of  the  Kingdom  is  also  indicated  in  the 
remark  made  upon  the  return  of  the  Seventy:  “I  beheld  Satan 
as  lightning  fall  from  heaven”  (St.  Lu.  10:  18).  The  King¬ 
dom,  indeed,  as  a  present  fact  has  confronted  us  throughout 
our  entire  study.  Where  this  is  not  explicitly  stated,  it  is 
implied.  It  is  the  presupposition  of  the  parables  of  Growth — 
the  Sower,  the  Seed  Growing  Secretly,  the  Mustard  Seed.  The 
parable  of  the  Leaven  is  meaningless  unless  the  Kingdom  is 
present,  and  acting  like  leaven.  The  parables  of  the  Tares  and 
the  Drag-Net  also  represent  the  Kingdom’s  admixture  of  good 
and  bad  in  this  present  world.  The  Beatitudes,  again,  notice¬ 
ably  imply  the  present  possession  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
“Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit:  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 

1  “And  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force”  (St. 
Mt.  11:12;  St.  Lu.  16:16). 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom  169 

heaven.”  Jesus  also  speaks  of  persons  as  now  entering  the 
Kingdom.  The  publicans  and  harlots  enter  before  the  chief 
priests  and  elders  (St.  Mt.  21:31).  Men,  again,  are  urged 
to  seek  the  Kingdom  before  all  things  (St.  Mt.  6:36),  evi¬ 
dently  implying  a  present  quest.  Woe  is  pronounced  upon  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  because  they  “shut  up  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  against  men,  for  ye  enter  not  in  yourselves,  neither 
suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  to  enter”  (St.  Mt.  23:  13). 
Mankind,  again,  is  urged  to  enter  into  Life.  “Narrow  is  the 
way  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it” 
(St.  Mt.  7  :  13-14) . 

This  use  of  the  term  “life”  is  very  interesting  and  sug¬ 
gestive.  “Life,”  indeed,  in  the  fulness  of  its  capacity,  is 
the  comprehensive  blessing  of  the  Kingdom.  In  this  connec¬ 
tion,  the  teaching  of  St.  John  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  about 
“eternal  life”  is  important.  “Eternal  Life,”  in  fact,  is  the 
Johannine  equivalent  for  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  thought¬ 
ful  reader  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  soon  impressed  by  the  scant 
attention  given  the  ever-present  phrase  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
— “The  Kingdom  of  God,”  or  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 
Eternal  Life  seems  to  be  the  engrossing  theme,  and  to  occupy 
in  the  mind  of  St.  John  the  position  which  had  been  held  by 
the  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  thought  of  the  Synoptists.  Upon 
reflection,  however,  no  cause  for  bewilderment  is  found.  St. 
John  was  ever  occupied  rather  with  the  content  and  meaning 
of  Christianity,  than  with  the  perpetuation  of  the  form  in  which 
it  was  originally  given.  A  little  thought  reveals  that  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God  and  Eternal  Life  are  equivalent:  the  one  is  the 
other.  The  point  of  view  may  be  different,  but  the  object 
viewed  is  the  same.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  eternal  or  en¬ 
during  life;  eternal  life  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  is  well 
illustrated  in  the  saying:  “He  that  doeth  the  will  of  God 
abideth  forever.”  Hence,  when  St.  John  emphasizes  “life”  and 
“eternal  life,”  he  does  not  minimize  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He 
rather  views  the  Kingdom  in  the  aspect  of  its  character  and 
end.  “Eternal  Life”  is  the  subjective  aspect  of  the  Kingdom 
in  relation  to  personality  and  eternity.  Bearing  this  fact  in 
mind,  we  notice  throughout  the  Fourth  Gospel  that  St.  John 
speaks  of  “eternal  life”  as  a  present  possession,  and  a  present 
fact.  “He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life”  (St. 


170 


Jesus’  Idea 


Jn.  6:47).1 

Thus  we  learn  from  abundant  sources  that  the  Kingdom  of 
God  was  a  present  fact.2  In  this  respect,  indeed,  Jesus  was  in 
full  accord  with  the  popular  Jewish  expectation,  while  He 
dissents  from  the  popular  view  of  to-day  as  to  the  exclusively 
future  character  of  the  Kingdom.  That  Jesus,  while  opposing 
the  Pharisaic  view  of  the  materialistic  and  political  Kingdom 
of  God,  was  not  led  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  viewing  the 
Kingdom  as  entirely  future,  “transcendental  and  heavenly, ”  a 
tendency  already  marked  in  the  Apocalyptic  literature  of  His 
time,  is  only  one  of  the  many  illustrations  of  the  splendid  bal¬ 
ance,  the  superb  equipoise  of  the  Man  of  Nazareth. 

The  popular  query  to-day,  however,  no  less  than  in  the 
day  of  Our  Lord,  is  this:  Admitting  that  Jesus  taught  the 
actual  existence  of  the  Kingdom,  where  is  it,  and  what  is  it? 
The  Kingdom  seems  non-existent.  Jesus,  indeed,  seemed  in  His 
own  day  to  present  a  sorry  spectacle — A  King  without  a 
Kingdom. 

To  understand  where  it  is,  let  us  again  recall  the  funda¬ 
mental  character  of  the  Kingdom.  It  is  inward  and  spiritual. 
It  is  primarily  a  Kingdom  of  the  inner  life.  God’s  Kingdom  is 
where  God’s  will  is  sovereign.  John  and  Jesus  had  declared 

1  This,  again,  suggests  also  an  important  truth :  the  word  “eternal” 
does  not  relate  so  much  to  time  as  to  character.  “Eternal  life”  is 
not  merely  a  life  that  is  endless;  it  is  rather  a  life  which  continues, 
because  it  is  the  kind  of  life  that  deserves  to  continue,  and  must 
continue.  It  is  a  life  begun  on  earth,  and  possessing  the  power  of 
survival  after  death. 

2  Yet  other  evidence  is  available.  Jesus  speaks  of  the  least  of  His 
disciples  in  the  Kingdom  as  then  greater  than  the  greatest  of  the 
adherents  of  the  Old  Dispensation — John  the  Baptist.  The  humblest 
disciple  of  the  Kingdom,  He  means,  “enjoys  greater  privileges  and 
stands  upon  a  higher  plane  of  revelation”  (St.  Mt.  11:11).  The 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  is,  also,  descriptive  throughout  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  in  this  world.  The 
virtues  there  inculcated  are  evidently  to  be  realized  in  the  ordinary 
relationships  of  man  with  man.  Unexpected  and  incidental  testi¬ 
mony  corroborative  of  the  present  character  of  the  Kingdom  is 
also  found.  Certain  delicate  expressions,  such  as  the  Greek  word 
wfAouidri,  used  in  the  parable  of  the  Tares,  and  already  referred 
to,  are  very  suggestive.  This  word  declares,  for  example,  that  the 
Kingdom,  even  as  Jesus  was  speaking,  “had  become  like”  a  field 
containing  tares  intermingled  with  the  wheat. 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom  17 1 

repeatedly,  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand.”  And  it 
was  at  hand;  it  was  present;  it  was  a  fact.  It  was  at  hand, 
present,  and  a  fact  in  the  Person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  By 
Him,  indeed,  God’s  will  was  done  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in 
Heaven.  “Not  my  will  be  done,  but  thine,  O  Lord.”  The 
soul,  the  mind,  and  the  heart  of  Jesus  were  the  Kingdom  of 
God.1  In  the  inner  life  of  Jesus,  there  was  that  conscious 
harmony  with  God’s  will,  which  is  akin  to  the  perfect  but 
unconscious  harmony  which  exists  in  the  world  of  Nature,  and 
throughout  the  Universe.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  human¬ 
ity,  indeed,  which  should  have  been  introduced  in,  and  through, 
the  person  of  the  First  Adam,  was  at  last  actual  in,  and  through, 
the  Person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Second  Adam.  Further, 
the  Kingdom  began  to  be  extended  when  Jesus  collected  a  band 
of  disciples  about  Him  into  whose  hearts  a  new  principle  of 
life  was  introduced — the  principle  of  divine  rule.  The  Second 
Adam,  indeed,  was  begetting  spiritual  children  to  continue 
the  good,  as  the  First  Adam  had  begotten  children  of  the  flesh 
to  perpetuate  the  evil.  The  one  was  the  founder  of  a  hu¬ 
manity  divorced  from  God;  the  other  founded  a  humanity 
wedded  to  God.  The  one  divided  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  the 
other  united  it.  In  the  one  and  his  descendants,  indeed,  the 
world  for  centuries  had  drifted  away  from  God;  in  the  other 
and  His  descendants  the  world  for  centuries  would  advance 
toward  God. 

The  Kingdom  of  God  had  thus  with  Jesus  become  primarily 
a  Kingdom  of  personality.  The  Kingdom,  indeed,  had  availed 
itself  of  the  most  forceful  of  all  agencies  for  good — the  power 
of  the  personal  life.  Jesus,  henceforth,  as  the  actual  embodi¬ 
ment  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  Individual,  must  necessarily  exert 
an  ever-increasing  influence  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men. 
Ideas  are  comparatively  powerless  unless  clothed  with  person¬ 
ality.  Incarnate  in  a  person,  they  become  sources  of  undying 
influence.  Well  has  George  Eliot  said:  “Ideas  are  often  poor 
ghosts ;  our  sun-filled  eyes  cannot  discern  them ;  they  pass 
athwart  us  in  their  vapor,  and  cannot  make  themselves  felt. 
But  sometimes  they  are  made  flesh;  they  breathe  upon  us  with 
warm  breath;  they  touch  us  with  soft,  responsive  hands,  they 

1  “The  soul  is  the  microcosm  within  which,  in  all  its  strength,  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  set  up.” 


172 


Jesus’  Idea 


look  at  us  with  sad,  sincere  eyes,  and  speak  to  us  in  appealing 
tones;  they  are  clothed  in  a  living,  human  soul,  with  all  its 
conflicts,  its  faith  and  its  love.  Then  their  presence  is  a  power, 
then  they  shake  us  like  a  passion,  and  we  are  drawn  after 
them  with  gentle  compulsion,  as  flame  is  drawn  to  flame.” 
This,  indeed,  was  the  glory  and  the  power  inhering  in  the 
present  “time”  of  the  Kingdom.  * 

That  Jesus  desired  men  to  believe  the  Kingdom  present 
in  His  own  Person  may  be  inferred  from  His  reply  to  the 
embassy  sent  to  Him  by  John  the  Baptist,  from  the  prison  fort¬ 
ress  of  Machero.  John,  we  remember,  had  been  imprisoned  by 
Herod  for  his  boldness  in  rebuking  the  incestuous  union  between 
Herod  and  his  brother  Philip’s  wife.  The  prophet  was  lying 
in  prison,  disheartened  and  downcast.  Doubts  began  to  haunt 
him.  On  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  he  had  testified  unhesitatingly 
to  the  Messiahship  of  the  Prophet  of  Galilee.  Things,  how¬ 
ever,  have  not  shaped  themselves  as  he  had  expected.  Conse¬ 
quently,  he  sends  two  of  his  disciples  to  Jesus  with  the  question: 
“Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another?” 
“Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Go  and  show  John  again 
those  things  which  ye  do  hear  and  see:  The  blind  receive  their 
sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf 
hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  Gospel 
preached  to  them.”  The  answer  is  not  direct,  but  suggestive. 
John  is  to  draw  his  own  conclusion.  As  soon,  however,  as  we 
hear  Jesus’  reply,  our  minds  instinctively  revert  to  the  Inaugural 
Address  delivered  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  and,  at  once, 
we  perceive  His  meaning.  Jesus  had  identified  Himself  in  that 
address  with  the  Messianic  character  prophecied  about  of  old. 
Now  He  suggests  to  John  that,  if  he  will  consider  the  signs 
of  the  times  as  they  are  revealed  in  His  Person,  and  the  work 
which  He  is  doing,  there  will  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
long-expected  Messiah  had  come,  and  with  Him,  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  John  was  laboring  to  some  extent  under  the  per¬ 
verted  Messianic  ideas  of  the  day,  and  Jesus  reminds  him  of 
Isaiah’s  picture  of  the  Messianic  King  and  Kingdom,  suggest¬ 
ing  that  it  is  finding  fulfilment  before  His  very  eyes,  if  he  will 
but  open  them  and  see. 

That  Jesus  also  spoke  of  the  Kingdom  as  future  in  time, 
as  well  as  present ,  cannot  be  reasonably  denied.  On  one  occa- 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom 


173 


sion,  He  declared  that  some  of  the  bystanders  would  not  die 
until  they  had  seen  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power. 
‘‘And  he  said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That  there 
be  some  of  them  that  stand  here  which  shall  not  taste  of  death, 
till  they  have  seen  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power” 
(St.  ML  9:1).  He  also  taught  that  men  should  come  from 
the  East  and  the  West  to  sit  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
in  the  Kingdom  (St.  Lu.  13:29).  At  the  Last  Supper,  He 
referred  to  a  future  repast  with  the  disciples  in  the  King¬ 
dom.  The  passages  are  respectively:  “And  they  shall  come 
from  the  East  and  from  the  West;  and  from  the  North  and 
from  the  South,  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God.” 
“Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine,  until  that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom 
of  God.”  We  must  bear  in  mind,  however,  at  this  point, 
that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  present  in  time  before  it  can  be 
future.  The  two  times  of  the  Kingdom,  indeed,  bear  to  each 
other  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  of  antecedent  and  result. 
To  interpret  the  Kingdom  only  in  an  eschatological,  or  final, 
sense,  is  in  reality  to  misunderstand  the  very  nature  of  the 
Kingdom.  For  a  due  appreciation  of  the  essential  nature  of 
the  Kingdom  will  reveal  that  “strictly  speaking  the  future  of 
the  Kingdom  is  divided,  and  the  notes  of  time  are  really  three¬ 
fold, — present,  near  future,  and  more  distant  future.” 

While  present  in  the  world,  the  Kingdom  is  always  coming , 
paradoxical  as  it  may  seem.  It  is  this  fact,  indeed,  which 
necessitates  “the  near  future”  of  the  Kingdom,  and  predicts  the 
“more  distant  future.”  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  first  within 
the  man.  Planted  within  the  individual,  it  is  little  more  in 
the  beginning  than  an  humble  desire  to  conform  to  the  will 
of  God.  Only  gradually,  and  after  labor,  struggle,  and  years, 
does  the  sovereignty  of  God  gain  control  of  the  entire  mind, 
and  heart,  and  life — yet  all  the  while  the  Kingdom  is  present 
and  acting  like  the  leaven  of  the  Master’s  illustration — “a  prin¬ 
ciple  working  from  within  outward,  for  the  renewal  and  trans¬ 
formation”  of  the  individuality,  affecting  life  in  all  its  rela¬ 
tionships,  even  influencing  the  mental  processes,  reconstructing 
the  thought.  A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump,  but  not 
at  once.  When  introduced,  it  affects  the  parts  immediately 
adjacent,  and  ultimately  the  whole.  Thus  Our  Lord’s  teaching 


r74 


Jesus’  Idea 


in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  Kingdom,  contradictory  and  incon¬ 
sistent  as  it  may  appear  to  the  superficial,  is  but  the  logical 
development  of  the  principle  enunciated  in  the  parable  of  the 
Leaven.  It  is  but  the  parable  of  the  Leaven  translated  into 
terms  of  time.  If  the  Kingdom  acts  like  leaven,  there  must 
be  both  a  near  future  and  a  more  distant  future  for  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God. 

And,  as  it  is  with  the  Kingdom  in  the  individual  life,  so 
it  is  in  the  world  at  large.  The  sovereignty  of  God  is  social 
in  aspect,  as  well  as  individualistic.  It  is  intended  to  “renew 
and  transform  every  department  of  human  existence.”  It  seeks 
a  lost  society  as  well  as  a  lost  individual.  The  social  organism 
is,  indeed,  full  of  darkness,  because  it  lacks  singleness  of  eye. 
For  example,  the  subject  of  Marriage  should  show  an  ever 
closer  approximation  to  the  divine  ideal  because  of  the  leaven 
of  the  Kingdom  in  the  world.  The  true  principle  of  Mar¬ 
riage  and  Divorce  is  set  forth  in  St.  Mt.  19:3-9.  As  this 
principle  prevails,  we  have  the  near  future  of  the  Kingdom, 
and  the  token  of  the  more  distant  future.  The  Kingdom,  also, 
consecrates  social  and  family  life,  and  seeks  for  their  con¬ 
formity  to  the  Divine  Ideal,  as  Jesus  indicated  by  His  presence, 
and  first  miracle  which  He  wrought  at  the  Wedding  Feast  of 
Cana  in  Galilee.  The  State  itself  should  also  reveal,  and  should 
reveal  increasingly,  the  near  future  of  the  Kingdom.1 

1  “Then  saith  he  unto  them,  Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar’s ;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God’s.” 
(St.  Mt.  21  :2i).  This  utterance,  indeed,  sheds  a  brilliant  light  upon 
the  comprehensiveness  of  the  Kingdom.  The  Pharisees  taught  that 
the  Jews,  as  the  Chosen  People,  should  be  ruled  by  God  alone,  or  by 
His  immediate  Vicegerent.  Hence  the  payment  of  the  annual  poll- 
tax  to  Rome  was  exceedingly  obnoxious.  They  consult  Jesus  as  to 
the  legitimacy  of  the  tax,  expecting  that  He,  as  a  loyal  Jew,  would 
declare  against  its  lawfulness.  Such  a  reply  would  make  the 
Emperor  His  foe,  and  probably  cause  His  deliverance  to  the 
Governor,  which  the  Herodians  desired  on  political  grounds,  and 
the  Pharisees  for  religious  reasons.  Jesus’  answer,  however,  by 
means  of  the  coin,  was  confounding.  Apparently  evasive,  it  met 
successfully  all  aspects  of  their  question.  The  significance  of  the 
reply  is  this :  Political  service  need  not  and  should  not  conflict  with 
religious  service.  The  State  and  the  Church,  while  not  identical, 
are  not  essentially  antagonistic.  Both  have  their  sphere,  and  both 
should  be  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

The  perfect  service  of  God,  indeed,  involves  the  rendition  of  full 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom 


175 


It  is  true  that  Jesus  said  almost  nothing  specifically  about 
the  effect  of  the  Kingdom’s  principles  upon  what  are  usually 
denominated  secular  affairs.  There  is  no  reference  in  His 
teaching  to  the  Kingdom’s  influence  uopn  Art  or  Education, 
Literature  or  Culture,  Philosophy  or  Economics,  Politics  or 
Commerce.  We  must  remember,  however,  that  Jesus  did  not 
suffer  from  the  prevalent  fallacy  of  dividing  life  into  two  com¬ 
partments,  one  of  which  is  labeled  “sacred”  and  the  other 
“secular.”  The  Jew,  in  fact,  knew  no  sacred  and  no  secular: 
all  was  sacred.  Life  was  religious  in  its  every  phase.  In 
Jesus’  thought,  then,  the  Kingdom  was  to  dominate  life  in  its 
entirety.  He  simply  emphasized  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  Kingdom,  and  trusted  to  their  inherent  power  to  permeate 
and  impregnate  the  whole,  regenerating  all  things. 

The  Christian  centuries,  indeed,  have  witnessed  ever  more 
and  more  the  gradual  harmonization  of  almost  every  depart¬ 
ment  of  human  activity  with  the  will  of  God.  The  Kingdom, 
religious  in  essence,  has  always  and  everywhere  overstepped 
the  bounds  of  what  men  call  the  “religious,”  and  has  invaded 
the  so-called  “secular”  sphere,  seeking  to  reclaim  it  for  God. 
The  aim  has  not  been  to  make  the  world  and  life  “religious”  in 
the  common  and  emasculated  sense  of  the  word,  but  to  have 
the  principles  of  God  reign  everywhere.  The  former  has 
indeed  been  the  result  whenever  the  identification  of  the  King- 

service  to  the  State.  The  Pharisees  sought  to  serve  God  religiously ; 
the  Herodian  was  content  to  serve  Him  politically.  Each  thought 
their  whole  duty  fulfilled,  whereas,  each  had  failed  in  half  their 
duty.  The  coin  evidenced  the  authoritative  government  of  Rome : 
under  it,  and  because  of  it,  the  Pharisees  enjoyed  whatever  blessings 
they  had,  hence  they  owed  certain  duties  to  it.  “Render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar’s.”  The  Herodians,  however,  while 
rendering  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  were  Caesar’s,  had  forgotten 
God  who  alone  rendered  Caesar’s  government  stable  and  authori¬ 
tative.  The  duty  to  the  State,  and  the  duty  to  God,  were,  however, 
complementary  and  not  antagonistic;  equally  incumbent  upon  all 
men,  and  both  are  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  either.  Men  are 
ever  forgetful,  however,  that  the  Moral  Law  was  written  upon  Two 
Tables  of  Stone:  the  one,  dealing  with  man’s  duty  to  God;  the 
other,  with  his  duty  to  his  fellow-man.  The  Church,  unfortunately, 
like  the  Pharisees  of  old,  has  always  been  chiefly  concerned  with 
duty  to  God,  and  neglectful  of  the  equally  important  duty  to  man. 
In  consequence,  thousands  to-day  are  more  concerned  with  the 
service  of  man  than  with  the  service  to  God. 


17  6 


Jesus ’  Idea 


dom  with  the  visible  Church  has  prevailed.  Then  the  attempt  is 
made  to  subordinate  every  department  of  life  to  the  Church. 
The  State  must  bow  before  the  Church ;  thrones  and  nations 
acknowledge  the  sovereignty  of  the  Mistress  of  the  World. 
Science  must  be  the  hand-maid  of  theology.  Everywhere  there 
is  curtailing,  restricting,  dwarfing.  Life  is  limited  instead  of 
had  more  abundantly.  Consequently,  there  is  constant  rebellion 
and  struggle.  A  false  ideal  controls  many,  but  is  utterly  unable 
to  conquer  completely  human  nature,  and  human  instinct. 
Where  it  is  successful,  we  have  a  society,  sexless,  impotent, 
miserable. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  veritable  Kingdom  of  God  seeks 
not  to  be  Master  but  servant,  although  it  becomes  sovereign 
through  service.  It  seeks  to  assist  the  State;  to  enrich  life  by 
developing  it,  by  calling  out  every  inherent  power  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  highest  principles  of  its  own  existence.  The  effort 
everywhere  is  to  free,  not  to  enslave.  The  one  factor,  indeed, 
works  from  within  to  enlarge;  the  other  from  without,  to  sup¬ 
press.  The  one  is  instinct  with  youth  and  vigor;  the  other 
bears  the  marks  of  decrepitude  and  death.  The  one  lives  in 
the  past;  the  other  always  hails  the  future. 

What  a  depth  of  meaning  there  is  in  the  oft-used  words 
of  the  Lord’s  Prayer:  “Thy  Kingdom  come ,  Thy  will  be  done 
on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven  ”  now  becomes  apparent.  The 
coming  of  the  sovereignty  of  God,  indeed,  means  infinitely  more 
than  the  extension  of  the  Christian  Church  or  the  transition 
from  a  terrestrial  to  a  celestial  sphere;  it  means  the  bringing 
of  man’s  manifold  relationships  and  activities  under  the  control 
of  God. 

Thus  we  find  that  Jesus’  idea  of  the  coming  of  the  King¬ 
dom  is  immeasurably  larger  and  more  inspiring  than  is  gener¬ 
ally  admitted.  He  would,  indeed,  transfigure  the  whole  of 
life. 

Usually,  this  coming  of  the  Kingdom  is  very  slow.  At  other 
times,  the  long-continued,  silent,  and  unobserved  leavening 
process  precipitates  a  sudden  and  apparently  unheralded  ad¬ 
vance.  Such  an  advance,  the  last  century  witnessed  in  the 
freeing  of  the  American  slaves,  and  the  emancipation  of  the 
Russian  serfs ;  more  recently  in  the  revolutions  which  are  bring¬ 
ing  political  liberty  to  the  Latin  races  and  even  to  Asiatic 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom 


177 


peoples. 

This  “near  future”  of  the  Kingdom,  as  we  have  interpreted 
it,  is  referred  to  by  Our  Lord  in  St.  Mark  9:1:  “Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  That  there  be  some  of  them  that  stand  here,  which 
shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of  God 
come  with  power .”  In  fact,  many  of  the  passages  which  are 
usually  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  Final  Coming  of  the 
Kingdom,  really  refer  to  its  spiritual  and  continuous  coming. 
The  writer  is  persuaded  that  such  passages  as  St.  Mt.  10:23, 
St.  Mt.  16:27-28,  St.  Lu.  17:22-36,  St.  Mt.  24:29-51,  St. 
Mt.  26:63-64,  and  their  counterparts  in  the  other  Gospels, 
bear  this  significance.  Unfortunately  the  limits  of  this  work 
do  not  permit  proof  of  the  fact.  However,  let  us  now  remem¬ 
ber  that,  in  Jesus’  view,  the  Kingdom  was  to  be  ushered  to 
advancing  stages  by  marked  steps,  which  could  be  compared 
to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  majesty  (St.  Mt.  16:  28), 
or  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  coming  with  power.  These  “com¬ 
ings,”  however,  are  always  regarded  as  imperfect  and  incom¬ 
plete.  The  thought  implied  is  “that  the  Kingdom  is  not  fully 
come  till  everything  in  human  life  and  in  the  relations  of  man 
in  society  is  brought  into  complete  harmony  with  the  will  of 
God.”  A  full  and  complete  coming  of  the  Kingdom  is  there¬ 
fore  posited. 

The  Kingdom  of  God,  indeed,  will  not  be  a  mere  continu¬ 
ous  evolution.  Having  had  a  beginning,  and  having  a  present 
development,  it  will  have  a  consummation :  the  more  remote 
future  of  the  Kingdom.  Christianity  is,  in  this  respect,  closely 
allied  to  all  the  great  religions  of  the  world,  and  to  the  great 
philosophic  and  scientific  systems  of  human  thought.  All  have 
some  doctrine  of  an  end.  Of  course,  in  using  the  word  “end,” 
we  do  not  mean  an  absolute  end  or  termination  of  all  things — 
but  the  entrance  upon  the  celestial  stage,  when  the  end  of  things 
as  they  are  constituted  at  present  shall  be  at  hand.  The  human 
mind,  the  constitution  of  the  physical  earth,  the  very  nature  of 
the  Universe  itself,  no  less  than  past  history,  and  all  human 
experience,  demand  and  predicate  an  end.  Hence  Christianity 
has  its  teleological  aspect. 

Our  study  would  lead  us  to  expect  this.  The  language 
of  the  parable  which  illustrates  the  development  of  the  King¬ 
dom  by  the  growth  of  a  seed  is  significant :  “first  the  blade,  then 


I7S 


Jesus 1  Idea 


the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear”  Here,  indeed,  are  “the 
times”  of  the  Kingdom — present,  near  future,  remote  future. 
The  remote  future  of  the  Kingdom  is  also  distinctly  empha¬ 
sized  in  the  words:  “But  when  the  fruit  is  brought  forth, 
immediately  he  putteth  in  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is 
come”  (St.  Mk.  4:  29).  The  luxuriant  growth  of  the  Mustard 
seed,  and  the  thoroughness  of  the  leaven  in  its  work,  may  be 
said,  also,  without  unduly  emphasizing  the  details  of  a  parable, 
to  predicate  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom.  The  parables 
of  the  Tares  and  the  Drag-Net  clearly  demonstrate  the  same 
truth,  and  may  contribute  certain  features  of  the  event.  The 
most  convincing  proof  of  the  final  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  how¬ 
ever,  is  to  be  derived  from  the  entire  trend  of  Jesus’  teaching 
in  regard  to  the  Kingdom  of  God.  As  the  Old  Testament 
demanded  the  New  Testament  as  its  complement  and  apology, 
so  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  revealed  by  Jesus,  demanded  through 
its  present  character,  a  more  complete  and  glorious  final  mani¬ 
festation.  Without  this,  the  Kingdom  is  unintelligible  and  a 
mockery.  It  is  especially  noticeable,  also,  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  which  is  the  most  insistent  of  all  the  Gospels  upon 
the  spiritual  and  progressive  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  is  not 
without  unreserved  testimony  to  a  final  consummation  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  an  adjudication  of  all  things. 

Our  data  for  determining  the  details  of  this  “coming,” 
however,  are  few  and  unsatisfactory.  This  “time”  of  the  King¬ 
dom  will  mark  the  transference  of  the  stage  of  action  from 
earth  to  heaven,  yet  the  character  of  this  stage  is  entirely  beyond 
our  ken.  Men  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  conditions  of  this  era, 
only  to  fail.  Their  attempts  are  sometimes  interesting,  often 
inane,  and  not  infrequently  ludicrous.  Here,  where  certainty 
is  less  justifiable  than  elsewhere,  we  often  find  a  dogmatism  at 
once  irreverent  and  unseemly.  Time  is  projected  into  eternity. 
The  after-world  is  constructed  upon  the  basis  of  the  present 
world.  Heaven  is  a  much  magnified  earth.  Golden  streets, 
pearly  gates,  and  a  catholicity  of  musical  ability  are  integral 
factors  of  the  conception.  Of  course  this  is  pardonable,  if  it 
remains  in  the  realm  of  the  figurative  and  the  approximate. 
When  accepted  literally,  it  becomes  puerile  and  utterly  in¬ 
adequate. 

On  the  very  threshold  of  our  speculation,  indeed,  Jesus  con- 


The  Time  of  the  Kingdom 


179 


fronts  us  with  an  indication  of  its  absolute  futility.  Let  us  note 
the  incident.  The  Sadducees  denied  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  Laughing  at  what  they  termed  Pharisaic  credulity,  they 
came  to  Jesus  with  an  inquiry,  framed  to  show  the  absurdity  of 
the  Pharisaic  belief.  The  Mosaic  law  required  that,  when  a 
married  man  died  without  leaving  children,  his  brother  should 
marry  his  widow  and  raise  up  children  to  him.  The  case  pro¬ 
pounded  to  Jesus  was  this:  A  woman  had  been  married  to  seven 
brothers  in  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  requirement;  to  whom 
would  she  belong  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead?  The  suppo¬ 
sition  of  the  Sadducees  was  the  prevalent  supposition  of  to-day, 
that  virtually  the  same  conditions  must  prevail  in  heaven  that 
prevail  on  earth.  The  reply  of  Jesus  is  very  important.  He 
declares  that  His  questioners  do  not  understand  the  Scriptures, 
which  they  profess  to  believe,  for  they  unmistakably  imply  im¬ 
mortality,  neither  do  they  know  the  power  of  God.  “Do  ye 
not  therefore  err,  because  ye  know  not  the  Scriptures,  neither 
the  power  of  God?  For  wdien  they  shall  rise  from  the  dead, 
they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage;  but  are  as 
the  angels  which  are  in  heaven”  (St.  Mk.  12:  18-27). 

This  language  is  explicit.  In  the  future  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  there  is  no  marriage.  Now  the  married  state  is  funda¬ 
mental  in  this  world.  We  cannot  conceive  of  a  worthy  state 
or  condition  of  humanity  in  which  husband  and  wife,  parents 
and  children,  and  homes  are  not  essential  factors.  Jesus,  how¬ 
ever,  with  very  few  words,  informs  us  that  in  the  final  stage  of 
the  Kingdom  this  condition  will  not  exist,  and  cites  the  power 
of  God  as  the  indication  of  the  Divine  ability  to  fashion  an¬ 
other  environment  for  man,  which  will  illustrate  another  prin¬ 
ciple  of  social  life  entirely.  If,  then,  the  final  stage  of  the 
Kingdom  will  not  be  organized  on  this  fundamental  principle 
of  our  present  existence,  is  it  not  foolhardy  to  attempt  to  con¬ 
ceive  of  other  characteristics  of  the  future  Kingdom?  “We  now 
see  through  a  glass  darkly,  but  then  we  shall  see  face  to  face.” 
We  must  admit  that  we  do  not,  and  that  we  cannot  know 
the  conditions  which  will  prevail,  because  we  do  not  know 
the  power  or  the  resources  of  God.  The  words  of  St.  Paul 
express  our  ignorance  and  our  knowledge  alike:  “Eye  hath 
not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart 
of  man,  the  things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love 


i8o 


Jesus ’  Idea 


him”  (I.  Cor.  2:9).  Thus,  while  ignorant  of  the  details,  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  in  the  final  coming  of  the  King¬ 
dom  after  a  long  period  of  time,  when  Jesus  who  “being  the 
Holiest  among  the  mighty,  and  the  mightiest  among  the  holy, 
has  lifted  with  His  pierced  hand  empires  off  their  hinges,  has 
turned  the  stream  of  centuries  out  of  its  channel,  and  still 
governs  the  ages,”  shall  return  as  “the  glorious  Leader  and 
King  of  Mankind,  the  triumphant  Founder  and  Perfecter  of 
the  Kingdom  of  a  redeemed  humanity.”  The  dead  will  rise, 
and  the  day  for  Judgment  be  at  hand.  This,  indeed,  is  clearly 
pointed  out  by  the  Synoptists,  and  by  St.  John.  The  Synop- 
tists,  however,  dwell  rather  upon  the  final  Resurrection,  while 
St.  John,  who  by  no  means  ignores  this  event,  dwells  upon 
the  resurrection  as  a  moral  and  ethical  fact,  possible  in  this 
life,  the  prelude  to,  and  the  cause  of  the  final  Resurrection 
to  Eternal  Life.  “And  shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have  done 
evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation”  (St.  Jn.  5:29). 

We  are  thus  limited  to  the  baldest  and  barest  of  facts.  We 
may  enter  the  realm  of  fantastic  speculation,  indulging  in  either 
the  wildest  or  the  most  sober  of  theories,  and  exercising  to  the 
Heart’s  content  the  most  fascinating  arts  of  rhetoric,  yet  all 
is  profitless.  This,  indeed,  men  love  to  do,  rather  than  to  adhere 
to  the  substantial  facts  which  are  revealed,  translating  them 
into  terms  of  their  life.  The  important  thing,  however,  to 
remember  is,  that  the  present  and  the  future  of  the  Kingdom 
are  related  to  each  other  as  cause  and  effect.  There  is  “first 
the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.”  Hence 
those  who  would  ultimately  enter  the  Kingdom  must  pass 
through  these  successive  stages.  There  must  be  this  orderly 
progress.  The  individual  must  have  the  Kingdom  present  in 
his  life,  before  he  can  be  present  in  the  future  of  the  Kingdom 
in  any  satisfactory  sense.  This,  indeed,  is  sufficient  for  man¬ 
kind  to  know.  Jesus  simply  brought  life  and  immortality  to 
light;  the  details  of  the  eternal  life  are,  and  will  remain,  obscure. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  KINGDOM 

The  world  to-day  hears  a  great  deal  of  what  the  church  has 
to  say  about  Jesus.  Equally  important,  however — if  not  more 
important,  in  view  of  present  conditions — is  it  for  the  world 
to  hear  what  Jesus  has  to  say  about  the  church. 

Only  on  two  distinct  occasions,  however,  did  Our  Lord 
make  explicit  mention  of  His  church.  The  references  are  St. 
Matthew  1 6 : 1 8  and  18:17.  Some  scholars,  notably  Wendt,  dis¬ 
pute  the  authenticity  of  these  sayings  of  Jesus,  inasmuch  as  there 
are  only  two  references  to  the  church  in  Our  Lord’s  entire  teach¬ 
ings,  as  we  have  them  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  both  of  these 
are  found  only  in  St.  Matthew.  While  this  paucity  of  reference 
is  remarkable,  yet  the  utterances  in  question  are  so  eminently 
characteristic  of  the  Christ,  and  so  natural,  logical  and  essential 
in  view  of  the  circumstances  which  called  them  into  being,  that 
we  are  compelled  to  disagree  with  that  criticism  which  would 
invalidate  them,  and  to  acknowledge  them  genuine  and  worthy 
of  most  studious  interpretation. 

Before  proceeding  to  their  detailed  interpretation,  however, 
it  may  be  pertinent  to  ask:  What  idea  does  the  word  “church” 
convey  to  us?  A  little  reflection  will  reveal  that  the  word  is 
used  commonly  in  one  of  three  senses:  the  universal,  the  de¬ 
nominational,  or  the  local.  We  speak,  for  instance,  of  the 
“universal  church,”  meaning  the  Christian  Church  throughout 
the  world,  independent  of  any  particular  nationality,  age,  or 
clime.  Again,  we  speak  of  the  Episcopal,  the  Methodist,  or  the 
Presbyterian  church,  narrowing  the  term  to  apply  to  some  spe¬ 
cific  body  of  Christians  or  denomination.  Yet  again,  we  speak 
of  the  church  in  some  locality  or  town,  thus  more  completely 
limiting  the  application  of  the  word.  Underneath  this  diversi¬ 
fied  usage,  however,  there  is,  in  the  popular  mind,  a  substantial 
unity  of  conception  or  idea.  It  is  the  idea  of  organization. 
Using  the  word  “church,”  we  understand  it  as  signifying  an 

181 


i82 


Jesus’  Idea 


organized,  duly  constituted  body,  with  its  own  officers,  institu¬ 
tions,  laws,  and  clearly  defined  beliefs.  The  character  or  kind 
of  organization  doubtless  depends  upon  the  point  of  view  of 
the  person  using  the  term ;  upon  the  ecclesiastical  spectacles  worn 
by  the  speaker,  and  through  which  he  views  the  distant  past. 
The  Roman  Catholic,  the  Episcopalian,  the  Presbyterian,  the 
Methodist,  and  the  Congregationalist  alike  are  apt  to  project 
into  the  earliest  use  of  the  word  “church”  the  character  or  type 
of  ecclesiastical  organization  with  which  they  are  most  familiar, 
and  of  which  they  are  devotees  to-day.  Hence  even  the  author¬ 
ity  of  Jesus  is  sometimes  claimed  for  each  of  these  varying  forms 
of  organization.  This  method  of  procedure  is,  of  course,  un¬ 
worthy  of  rational  support.  It  is  also  a  more  or  less  flagrant 
reversal  of  history.  The  law  of  organization  is  much  the  same 
as  the  law  of  life.  Institutions  grow ;  they  are  evolved  and  de¬ 
veloped.  They  are  not  born  full-grown,  mature  in  form  and 
character.  To  attribute  either  the  broad  outlines  or  the  detailed 
minutiae  of  ecclesiastical  organization  to  Jesus  is,  in  our  opinion 
at  least,  to  belittle  the  wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  view  of  the 
universality  of  His  religion,  and  to  demand  His  descent  to  a  par¬ 
ticularity  with  which  He  was  apparently  but  slightly  concerned, 
if  concerned  at  all.  Jesus,  indeed,  stands  committed  to  no 
ecclesiastical  program.  The  popular  interpretation  of  the 
word  “church,”  however,  renders  it  imperative  that  we  study 
the  meaning  of  the  word  used  and  so  translated  in  the  pages 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  term  is  the  Greek  e/cKX^cna, 
whence  are  derived  “ecclesiastic”  and  “ecclesiastical.”  1 

At  the  outset  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  the  meaning  of 
this  word  is  not  what  is  first  suggested  by  the  English  word 
“church.”  The  word  of  the  Evangelist  meant  not  so  much 
organization,  official  and  stereotyped,  as  an  assemblage,  a  con¬ 
gregation,  a  community  or  brotherhood.  This  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  idea  when  we  study  the  historic  Hebrew  connotation  of 
the  term.  The  thought  is  plastic,  pliable,  more  social  than 
institutional;  it  is  an  ideal  to  be  made  real,  rather  than  an  ac¬ 
tual  to  be  made  ideal.  Primarily,  the  term  speaks  of  social  and 
religious  union.  At  first  everything  is  in  a  more  or  less  chaotic 
or  disordered  state — at  least,  an  unorganized  state.  The  refer¬ 
ence  of  " ecclesia/'  indeed,  is  to  the  time  before  there  have  arisen 

1  See  Appendix  F.,  “The  Meaning  of  Ecclesia.” 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


the  inevitable  results  of  any  permanent  association  of  mn — duly 
constituted  laws,  officials,  creeds,  a  thoroughly  organized  system ; 
or,  in  other  words,  an  institutional  regime.  This  will  and  must 
ensue.  But  we  must  be  careful  not  to  confound  the  later 
growth  with  the  incipient  stage;  we  must  not  project  the  late 
into  the  early.  In  our  views  of  the  Church  of  Jesus,  let  us 
abandon  the  mechanical  for  the  vital.1 

In  order  that  we  may  see  this  as  the  meaning  of  Jesus  the 
more  clearly,  let  us  turn  to  the  recorded  instances  of  Our  Lord’s 
use  of  the  equivalent  of  this  word.  Toward  the  close  of  His 
life,  and,  therefore,  late  in  His  public  ministry,  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles  were  at  Cesarea-Philippi.  The  scene  and  occasion  are 
memorable.  Already  the  bitter  hostility  of  the  Jews  against 
Jesus,  and  their  absolute  rejection  of  Him  are  in  evidence.  Fur¬ 
thermore,  they  are  standing  in  the  very  presence  of  the  august 
symbol  of  the  Roman  power  in  the  splendid  temple  at  Cesarea. 
Jesus  asks  of  His  disciples:  “Who  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son 
of  man,  am?”  The  apostles  answer:  “Some  say  that  thou  art 
John  the  Baptist;  some  Elijah,  and  others  Jeremiah,  or  one  of 
the  prophets.”  This  reply  reveals  but  one  opinion — the  people 
do  not  understand  Him  to  be  the  Messiah.  Conscious  of  this, 
Jesus  addresses  to  them  a  like  inquiry:  “But  who  say  ye  that 
I  am?”  That  moment  was  one  of  dramatic  intensity.  For  long 
He  has  sought  to  lead  them  to  the  truth.  Have  His  efforts 
failed?  Now  is  the  moment  to  see.  Think  of  the  suspense! 
But  the  Master  has  not  long  to  wait.  Peter,  the  impetuous 

1  The  succinct  yet  pregnant  statement  of  Dr.  Hort  is  worthy  of 
our  attention :  “The  word  ‘Church’  carries  with  it  associations 
derived  from  the  institutions  and  doctrines  of  later  times,  and  this 
cannot,  at  present,  without  a  constant  mental  effort,  be  made  to 
convey  the  full  and  exact  force  which  originally  belonged  to 
‘ecclesia.’  ” 

Further,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  in  the  early  English  trans¬ 
lations  of  the  New  Testament  “ecclesia”  was  translated  “congre¬ 
gation”  and  not  “church.”  For  instance,  in  the  famous  Bishop’s 
Bible,  St.  Matt.  16:18  reads,  not  “Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church,”  but  “Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  congregation.”  It  is 
only  with  the  appearance  of  our  Authorized  Version  in  1611  that 
the  translation  “church”  wholly  supplanted  the  more  correct  render¬ 
ing  of  “ecclesia.”  Such  facts  as  these  bring  forcibly  before  us 
the  thought  and  idea  of  Jesus.  He  was  to  have  a  congregation, 
an  assembly,  a  community,  or  brotherhood  of  men.  This  was  the 
great  conception. 


184 


Jesus’  Idea 


and  active  leader  and  spokesman  of  the  apostolic  band,  imme¬ 
diately  replies:  “Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.”  Jesus  has  not  failed.  Success  is  His.  Here  is  one  at 
least  who  understands.  Rome  may  shine  in  her  splendor,  the 
Jewish  nation  spurn  the  Galilean  peasant,  the  people  think  of 
Him  only  as  a  prophet;  but  Peter,  at  least,  is  convinced  that 
He  is  the  Messiah  and  none  else.1 

And  now  is  the  moment  to  declare  the  effect  or  consequence 
of  this  voluntary  confession.  “I  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  ‘ ecclesiaj  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.”  There  was,  in  other 
words,  to  be  a  new  Israel,  in  which  Peter  should  be  first;  a 
community  or  brotherhood  of  men,  with  Peter  as  the  corner¬ 
stone,  against  which  the  very  gates  of  hell,  the  emblem  of  in¬ 
vincibility  to  the  Ancient  World,  should  not  prevail.2 

This  is  the  first  explicit  intimation  which  we  have  of  the 
Church.  The  words  break  suddenly  from  the  Master’s  lips. 
They  seem,  however,  to  presage  a  line  of  thought  long  enter¬ 
tained,  and  to  voice  an  intention  determined  upon  in  silence, 
but  now,  at  the  opportune  moment,  publicly  proclaimed.  The 
“eccles'icT  indeed,  was  no  new  idea,  no  sudden  fancy,  but  rather 
a  mature  conviction.  The  Christian  Church,  in  fact,  is  no  mere 
mechanical  creation;  it  is  a  vital  thing.  The  church  is  neces¬ 
sitated  by  the  very  nature  of  Christianity.  Had  Jesus  enter¬ 
tained  no  thought  of  founding  a  church,  and  had  He  taken 
no  steps  to  found  one,  the  church  would  have  resulted  neces¬ 
sarily,  Christianity  being  what  it  is  in  both  life  and  truth. 
Truth  tends  to  association  and  organization;  life,  to  expression 
and  embodiment.3 


1  It  is  an  assured  conviction,  too — calm,  mature ;  so  mature  as  to 
be  able  to  bear  the  strain  of  the  Messiah’s  suffering  and  death — 
an  idea  abhorrent  to  the  Jewish  mind,  but  advocated  openly  by 
Jesus  for  the  first  time  on  this  occasion.  Of  their  own  will  have 
they  come  to  their  conclusion ;  there  has  been  no  coercion,  no 
persuasion.  Heaven  has  opened  their  eyes,  and  they  have  seen. 

2  See  Appendix  G.,  “The  Primacy  of  Peter.” 

8  This  is  natural  law.  The  psychologist’s  maxim,  “All  mental 
states  are  followed  by  activity  of  some  sort,”  finds  illustration  here. 
The  church,  then,  would  have  resulted  had  Jesus  taken  no  active 
steps  consciously  to  utilize  this  law.  But  Jesus,  here  as  elsewhere, 
puts  Himself  into  line,  if  we  may  so  speak,  with  the  laws  of 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


185 


Any  great  idea  indeed,  or  thought  born  into  the  world  of  men 
attracts  to  itself  kindred  spirits,  and  usually  becomes  an  organiz¬ 
ing  force.  History  is  replete  with  such  movements.  It  is  in¬ 
evitable,  therefore,  apart  from  any  direct  action  of  the  Master, 
that  such  great  ideas  as  those  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  should  be¬ 
come  an  organizing  principle  in  the  life  of  the  world.  How 
naturally  too  would  this  be  brought  about  when  the  fundamental 
thoughts  of  Our  Lord  were  the  fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
brotherhood  of  man.  That  this  truth  was  present  to  the  master- 
intellect  of  Jesus  we  fully  believe,  and  to  it  we  attribute  that 
characteristic  optimism  which  impelled  Him  to  form  only  the 
nucleus  of  a  society  in  the  persons  of  the  Twelve;  and,  to  quote 
the  words  of  England’s  foremost  New  Testament  scholar,  Dr. 
Sanday,  “After  the  manner  of  the  divine  operations  in  nature, 
he  was  rather  content  to  plant  a  germ  with  indefinite  capacities 
of  growth,  than  thought  it  necessary  to  fix  in  advance  the  details 
of  organization.”  1 

nature,  and  consciously  cooperates  with  them,  or,  better,  makes 
them  serve  His  ends. 

1  Exhaustive  study  of  the  life  of  Jesus  has  revealed  the  falsity 
of  the  claim  that  He  established  a  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern¬ 
ment,  and  Historical  Criticism  and  Research  are  ever  revealing 
more  fully  that  the  form  or  forms  which  subsequently  arose  were  a 
gradual  growth,  and  in  their  origin  and  development  shaped  by 
actual  needs  and  largely  borrowed  from  forms  of  Organization  al¬ 
ready  current  in  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  worlds  until,  in  the 
process  of  time,  the  whole  approximated  closely  to  the  Imperial 
form  of  Organization  with  the  Pope  or  Caesar  at  its  head.  Well- 
nigh  every  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization  with  which  the  modern 
world  is  familiar  had  its  counterpart  in  some  stage  of  this  develop¬ 
ment,  uniformity  being  not  an  initial  but  a  culminating  characteristic. 
The  much-vaunted  “Historic  Episcopate”  represents  only  a  “half¬ 
way  house,”  a  half-way  stage  in  the  development,  and  is  found  in 
the  beginning  only  in  some  places.  Hence,  while  it  may  prove  of 
service  in  the  organic  reunion  of  the  Christian  Church  (if  such  unity 
is  desirable,  and  we  think  the  matter  open  to  grave  question,  since 
greater  evils  are  likely  to  ensue  from  such  unity  than  those  which 
now  prevail  from  the  divisions  of  Christendom,  for  the  memories 
of  the  World  of  one  Church  are  certainly  neither  pleasant,  inspiring 
nor  alluring),  it  is  at  once  deprived  of  all  authority  as  coming 
from  a  command  of  Christ  or  as  representing  a  “development” 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  since,  as  we  have  just  said, 
that  early  development  issued  both  logically  and  actually  in  the 
Papacy.  The  truth  is  that  neither  the  intermediate  stages  nor  the 


1 8  6 


Jesus’  Idea 


Jesus,  indeed,  at  Cesarea-Philippi  had  a  vision,  superb  and 
glorious,  of  a  great  nation  or  brotherhood  of  men,  a  family  of 
God  in  which  the  all-important  thing  should  be  the  sovereignty 
of  the  law  of  love. 

That  He  had  been  consistently  working  toward  this  end, 
however,  from  the  beginning  is  evident.  The  organizing  power 
of  His  idea,  in  fact,  began  to  manifest  itself  when  the  first  two 
disciples — Andrew  and  John — believed  on  Him  by  the  Jordan 
and,  turning  from  the  Baptist,  followed  Him.  A  little  later, 
Jesus  manifested  this  social  power  of  His  ideal  when,  by  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  He  summoned  four  fishermen  to  leave  all  and 
follow  Him.  (St.  Mt.  4:18-22;  St.  Mk.  1:16-19;  cf.  St.  Lu. 
5:7-11).  Here,  and  also  in  the  call  of  Levi  (St.  Mt.  9:9; 
St.  Mk.  2:14;  St.  Lu.  5:27-29),  a  significant  step  was  taken  in 
the  formation  of  the  brotherhood  of  men.  A  more  distinctive 
and  far  more  significant  step  was  soon  taken  in  the  call  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles.1 

The  selection  of  the  Twelve  indeed  occurred  at  a  critical 
moment.  Rejected  by  the  authorities,  and  largely  by  the  people 
of  Judea,  Jesus  had  sought  the  less  conventional  atmosphere  of 
Galilee.  There,  however,  the  inveterate  enmity  of  His  foes  pur¬ 
sued  Him.  The  Pharisees,  with  the  Herodians,  had  organized 
for  His  overthrow;  the  answer  of  Jesus  was  the  call  of  the 
Twelve.  His  enemies  have  advanced  a  step ;  He  too  will  advance 
a  step.  As  they  seek  the  ruin  of  His  cause,  He  seeks  to  insure 
its  success.  “Yes,  him  they  may  destroy,  but  in  his  room  there 
shall  be  Twelve;  and  from  the  Twelve  how  many  more!” 

final  form  of  this  early  development  are  essentially  permanent  or 
binding;  they  are  simply  accidents  of  Christianity’s  development, 
and  the  super-abounding  life  of  Christianity  may  at  any  time 
develop  new  or  better  forms ;  the  new  wine  may  demand  new 
bottles  or  new  channels  of  expression. 

1  St.  Lu.  6:12-13  says :  “And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  he 
went  out  into  a  mountain  to  pray  and  continued  all  night  in  prayer 
to  God.  And  when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples, 
and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom,  also,  he  named  Apostles”  (cf. 
St.  Mt.  10;  St.  Lu.  3:14-19).  Nowhere,  however,  were  their  duties 
formally  defined ;  they  simply  occupied  an  intimate  personal  rela¬ 
tionship  with  Jesus,  as  companions  and  ambassadors.  We  use  the 
word  “ambassador”  advisedly.  The  Apostle  is  not  merely  one  who 
is  sent  with  a  message,  but  one  who  is  also  a  personal  and  an  ac¬ 
credited  representative. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


187 


There  had  been  Twelve  Tribes  in  God’s  Ancient  Kingdom  of 
'Israel ;  these  had  constituted  the  ancient  kahal ,  or  congregation. 
So  Jesus  now  selected  Twelve  Apostles.  As  from  the  twelve 
sons  of  Jacob,  the  nation  had  descended  which  was  at  once  the 
embodiment  of  the  Kingdom,  and  its  agency  of  extension,  so 
from  these  Twelve  spiritual  Sons  of  Jesus,  was  to  descend  the 
nation  or  brotherhood  which  should  be  the  fuller  expression  of 
the  Kingdom,  and  its  means  for  perfect  consummation.  “And 
he  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he 
might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal 
sickness,  and  to  cast  out  devils”  (St.  Mk.  3:14,  15).1 

Turning  now  to  the  second  and  last  mention  of  the  church 

1  In  the  light  of  this  call,  we  appreciate  an  utterance  of  Jesus 
recorded  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  although  in  a  different 
context.  At  the  Last  Supper,  the  Master  is  represented  by  St.  Luke 
as  saying :  “And  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom  as  my  Father  hath 
appointed  unto  me:  That  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my 
kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel” 
(22:29,  30).  St.  Matthew  19:  28  quotes  this  passage  after  the  inter¬ 
view  with  the  rich  young  man,  and  St.  Peter’s  question  as  to  what 
the  disciples  were  to  have  for  following  Jesus.  There  twelve  thrones 
are  mentioned ;  while  in  St.  Luke  we  have  simply  “thrones,”  owing 
to  the  defection  of  Judas.  The  Apostles’  position,  however,  would 
be  a  temporary  one.  (I.  Cor,  15:28.)  The  meaning  of  the  Master 
is  this :  In  view  of  the  Apostles’  labors,  and  the  perils  through 
which  they  had  remained  constant,  Jesus  ordained  for  them  a 
sovereignty,  as  the  Father  had  ordained  dominion  for  Him.  They 
were  selected  for  unique  distinction :  to  sit  at  the  very  table  of  the 
Sovereign  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  Messianic  Banqueting  Hall,  and 
to  occupy  thrones  as  judges  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel — the 
Ancient  Israel  perhaps,  and  the  new  Spiritual  Israel  of  which  they 
would  be  the  progenitors.  Recruited  from  the  middle  class  of 
Jewish  society,  the  Apostles  certainly  did  not  seem  destined  for 
such  regal  honors.  They  possessed,  however,  moral  fitness  and 
spiritual  aptitude.  Hence,  Jesus  kept  them  with  himself  for  some 
six  months,  instructing  them  in  the  bonds  of  closest  intimacy,  and 
subsequently  sending  them  two  by  two  upon  a  mission  to  the  lost 
sheep  of  Israel,  that  He  might  reclaim  Israel  if  possible,  and  at  the 
same  time  test  the  strength  and  adaptability  of  His  ambassadors. 
Thus,  while  proclaiming  the  truths  of  the  Kingdom  everywhere, 
Jesus  was  especially  busied  with  the  training  of  the  Twelve,  whom 
He  regarded  as  the  first-fruits  of  the  brotherhood  which  He  was 
hopeful  of  establishing,  and  the  reapers  in  a  rich  harvest  which 
was  to  be  garnered.  Realizing  this,  we  can  understand  the  great 
significance  of  St.  Peter’s  confession  at  Cesarea  Philippi. 


1 8  8 


Jesus’  Idea 


in  the  Gospels  (St.  Mt.  18:17#.),  we  see  the  aspect  of  brother¬ 
hood  more  clearly  revealed.  This  utterance  presupposes  the 
earlier  utterance.  Christianity  is  nothing  if  it  is  not  practical. 
When  a  wrong  is  committed  against  us  by  a  Christian  brother 
or  sister,  Jesus  tells  us  that  offended  dignity  must  yield  to  ardent 
desire  for  reconciliation.  The  spiritual  condition  of  the  offender 
must  prompt  us  to  the  rescue.  “Go  and  tell  him  his  fault 
between  thee  and  him  alone.”  Seek  a  private  interview  and 
understanding.  “If  he  will  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy 
brother;”  yes,  gained  him  anew  for  the  brotherhood  of  man. 
“But  if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more, 
that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every  word  may 
be  established.”  Following  the  Old  Testament  precedent  of 
witnesses,  the  principle  of  arbitration  is  to  be  utilized.  Arbi¬ 
trators,  disinterested,  whose  eyes  are  not  blinded  by  passion  or 
self-interest,  who  can  bring  moral  influence  to  bear  in  effecting 
a  settlement,  and  who  can  testify  to  what  has  occurred,  must 
be  sought.  But  should  the  offender  remain  obdurate,  as  the  last 
resort,  “tell  it  unto  the  church,”  the  cK/cX^o-ta,  the  last  court  of 
appeal.  It  is  contended  by  some — we  think  unjustifiably — 
that  eKKXrjaia  here  is  the  Jewish  e/oA^o-ta,  but  surely,  if  this  be 
true,  the  principle  involved  is  no  less  applicable  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  e/ocXrjcria  or  community  of  believers  in  Jesus.  Should  the 
brother  not  hearken  to  the  advice  and  exhortation  of  the  church, 
“let  him  be  for  thee” — i.  e.,  in  thy  estimation — “as  a  heathen 
and  a  publican.”  In  other  words  he  is  self-excommunicated. 
There  is  to  be,  and  there  can  be,  no  brotherly  intercourse  with 
him,  for  he  will  not  act  the  part  of  a  brother.  The  church  is 
also  informed  that  its  decisions  will  be  ratified  in  heaven.  And 
to  render  the  exercise  of  this  tremendous  power  credible  and 
reasonable,  Jesus  promises  to  the  supplicating  church — pleading 
for  the  renewal  of  brotherhood — divine  illumination,  so  that 
the  decisions  of  the  congregation  may  accord  with  the  mind 
of  God.  The  ideas  of  the  eKK^at a  are  here  most  clearly 
brought  out  by  the  Master;  they  are  fellowship  with  God  and 
the  brotherhood  of  man.  The  sin  against  the  church  is  the 
sin  against  love — love  for  the  brethren. 

If  the  method  of  Christ  was  followed  consistently  and  scru¬ 
pulously,  what  a  vast  step  toward  the  peace  of  the  world  would 
be  taken!  Exercised  in  Christian  parishes  and  congregations^ 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


189 


and  everywhere  among  Christian  people,  it  might  offend  some; 
and  others  might  snap  their  fingers  in  the  face  of  all  attempts 
at  reconciliation,  seeking  refuge  in  some  other  parish,  or  de¬ 
nomination,  to  be  welcomed  by  some  ignoble,  perhaps  rejoic¬ 
ing,  clergyman  or  minister.  Thus  the  effort  would  often  be 
rendered  abortive.  But  should  all  religious  bodies,  parishes,  and 
congregations  rise  to  the  height  of  the  Master’s  teaching,  such 
unseemly  conduct  would  be  impossible,  and  general  Christian 
sentiment  would  compel  to  godly  union  and  concord.  Might 
not  the  so-called  Church  of  Jesus  stress  this  teaching  of  the 
Master,  with  profit  both  to  itself  and  to  the  world,  instead 
of  much  of  the  stuff  upon  which  to-day  it  places  heavy  em¬ 
phasis? 

That  this  is  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  no  one  can  doubt;  but,  alas! 
it  is  far  from  realization.  The  church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to-day 
weakest  in  that  which  should  be  its  most  salient  characteristic — 
heartfelt,  unadulterated  brotherhood.  Of  theoretical  brother¬ 
hood,  perhaps  of  latent  brotherhood,  we  have  enough;  but  of 
actual,  energizing  brotherhood  we  have  far  too  little.  Within 
the  church  itself  class  and  social  distinctions — wealth,  culture, 
education,  and  intelligence,  and  many  other  things — enter  to 
mar  the  sense  of  brotherhood.  Consequently  innumerable  in¬ 
dividuals  and  the  masses  drift  away  from  the  church.1 

The  spirit  of  brotherhood,  however,  is  an  essential  of  the 
church  of  Jesus.  Orthodoxy  of  creed  and  orthodoxy  of  ministry 
are  well,  but  orthodoxy  of  spirit  is  better.  In  interpreting 
eKK\rjat a  primarily  of  ministry  or  creed  we  commit  an  egregious 
blunder.  This  splendid  word  of  the  Gospel  turns  the  thought 

1  The  severest  indictment  ever  received  by  the  Christian  church  is 
the  existence  and  the  immense  popularity  of  the  many  fraternal 
organizations.  Conviviality  and  selfishness  are  neither  the  source 
nor  the  mainstay  of  these ;  indeed,  theii  presence  is  a  mighty 
protest  against  existing  conditions,  the  eloquent  witness  of  the 
innate  craving  of  the  human  heart  for  brotherhood,  the  confession 
that  it  cannot  be  found  in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
abundant  indication  that  men  have  set  out  to  find  it  for  themselves. 
Did  the  church  of  Jesus  even  measurably  attain  its  ideal,  their 
raison  d’etre  would  cease  to  exist.  And,  sad  to  relate,  one  of  the 
chief  forces  militating  against  the  sense  of  brotherhood  arises  from 
the  church’s  failure  to  appreciate  the  essential  meaning  of  £KK\ij<rla- 
Essential  means  something  that  is  necessary  to  the  constitution  or 
existence  of  a  thing. 


Jesus’  Idea 


190 

away  from  the  institutional  and  speaks  of  the  social,  the  moral, 
the  ethical;  of  a  brotherhood,  not  primarily  of  an  organization. 
He  who  best  fulfils  the  terms  of  human  brotherhood  belongs 
to  the  true  church  of  Christ.  “He  that  doeth  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven;  the  same  is  my  mother  and  sister  and 
brother.”  To  do  the  will  is  to  belong  to  the  family  of  God: 
the  church  is  the  family  of  God. 

That  Jesus  intended  His  brotherhood  to  become,  if  possible, 
coextensive  with  humanity,  is  seen  in  the  words  addressed  to 
the  Apostles  upon  the  mountain  in  Galilee:  “Go  ye  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you:  and,  lo, 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world”  (St. 
Mt.  28:19-20).  Again  we  meet  with  a  dream  of  universal 
empire.  The  vision  of  a  Kingdom  gained  along  Satanic  lines, 
however,  is  here  replaced  by  a  vision  of  a  Kingdom  gained  along 
God-appointed  lines.  “Go”  bespeaks  aggression.  Beginning 
from  Jerusalem,  they  were  to  go  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
wooing  and  winning  humanity.  That  which  they  possessed 
could  overcome  all  social,  national  and  racial  barriers.  And 
going,  they  were  to  disciple  all  nations.  Man’s  ideas  were  to 
give  way  before  God’s  ideas.  Further,  they  were  to  baptize 
the  nations  of  the  earth  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  sense  of  this  formula  is 
primarily  that  of  a  declaration  of  allegiance. 

Among  the  Hebrews,  as  we  have  found,  the  name  expressed 
the  character  or  nature  of  the  person  named.  For  example,  “the 
name  of  Jehovah  is  used  as  a  succinct  expression  for  the  re¬ 
vealed  character  of  God,  for  all  that  is  known  of  him.”  Again, 
to  have  the  name  called  over  something,  involved  the  idea  of 
ownership  and  protection.  It  did  not  mean  “that  the  person 
or  object  referred  to  will  bear  the  name  of  that  person  whose 
name  is  called  over  it”;  it  means  that  it  will  come  under  his 
authority ,  pass  into  his  possession .1 

Hence  Jesus’  expression  here  bears  the  Old  Testament  sig- 

r- 

1 II  Sam.  12 128  may  be  cited  in  illustration  of  this.  Joab  is  anxious 
for  David  to  take  the  city,  “lest  I  take  the  city,  and  it  be  called  after 
my  name,”  i.  e.,  be  regarded  as  having  passed  under  Joab’s 
authority. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  19 1 

nificance,  and  should  be  interpreted  in  that  sense.  Thus  to  bap¬ 
tize  the  nations  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  means  to  bring  them  into  direct  allegiance 
to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  all  for  which  those 
names  stand .  The  nations,  in  other  words,  pass  under  the  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  these  personalities.  When  we  realize,  even  meas¬ 
urably,  what  these  names  represent,  we  begin,  in  some  degree, 
to  fathom  the  depth  of  Jesus’  intention  here.  He  sees  with  pro¬ 
phetic  vision  the  nations  of  the  earth  acknowledging  the  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  the  Triune  God — become  the  Kingdom  of  God — 
and  representing  in  every  phase  of  their  activity  the  principles 
for  which  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  live.  There  is  an 
intensive  power  in  this  formula,  as  great  as  the  extensive  power 
involved  in  the  word  “GoT  The  visible  church,  however,  has 
always  been  fonder  of  emphasizing  the  extensive  property  of 
the  Kingdom,  than  its  intensive  property.  It  loves  always  to 
follow  the  line  of  least  resistance.1  Yet  these  two  properties 
of  the  Kingdom  should  go  hand  in  hand.  It  is  useless,  indeed, 
for  the  church  to  “go,”  unless  in  going,  there  is  a  genuine  bap¬ 
tism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  instead 
of  into  a  veneer  of  ecclesiasticism,  which  often  makes  the  bap¬ 
tized,  like  the  Pharisaic  proselyte  of  old,  twofold  more  the 
child  of  Hell  than  he  was  before.  What  men  call  Holy  Baptism 
to-day  is,  indeed,  often  worse  than  nothing.  The  Trinity,  into 
which  Jesus  would  have  humanity  baptized,  was  not  outward 
and  metaphysical,  but  ethical  and  inward.  He  dwelt  upon  its 
manward,  not  its  Godward  aspects.  This  was  the  important 
aspect  for  the  world.  His  mind  was  not  troubled  with  the  re¬ 
lationship  of  the  Three  Persons  to  the  One  God,  or  to  one 
another,  but  with  the  relationship  of  the  Three  Persons,  and 
each  Person  to  every  individual,  and  to  the  life  of  the  world. 
Baptism  was  not  so  much  into  water  or  into  a  mere  name,  as 
into  a  new  life  of  aspiration  and  of  power,  of  forgiveness  and  of 
peace.2 

1  The  writer  has  known,  for  instance,  of  a  Diocese  of  the  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal  Church,  which  was  famous  for  its  foreign  mis¬ 
sionary  interest  and  contributions,,  yet  which  in  itself  represented 
the  very  acme  of  Pharisaic  exclusivism,  social  arrogance  and  hau¬ 
teur. 

2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no  mention 
of  any  one  being  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  The 


U)2 


Jesus’  Idea 


Thirdly,  the  Apostles  were  to  teach  all  nations  to  observe 
the  commandments  of  Christ.  Going ,  discipling,  instructing, 
was  the  threefold  obligation  imposed  upon  them.  They  were 
to  be  primarily  preachers  and  teachers.  Jesus  sounded  no  note 
of  officialdom  or  of  organization  whatever.1  Whatever  the 
Apostles  did  in  the  way  of  organization  was  due  solely  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  situations  that  confronted  them,  and  to  the 
vantage  which  their  peculiar  relationship  to  the  Master  gave 
them. 

Complying  with  the  obligation  imposed,  Jesus  promises  that 
He  will  be  with  them  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
“Always”  really  means  “all  the  days  ”  “Days  of  strength  and 
of  weakness,  days  of  success  and  of  failure,  of  joy  and  of  sor¬ 
row,  of  youth  and  of  age,  days  of  life  and  days  of  death — all 
the  days.”  Obeying  His  command,  indeed,  they  were  to  feel  the 
divine  benediction  of  His  presence.  No  product  of  the  ec¬ 
clesiastical  imagination  is  more  illy  conceived  and  unsupported 
by  fact  than  that  which  regards  this  promise  as  made  to  a 

expressions  used  are:  “in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ”  (Acts  2:38); 
“in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus”  (Acts.  8:16;  19:5)  ;  “in  the  name 
of  the  Lord”  (Acts  10:48),  cf.  Jam.  2:7;  Rom.  6:3;  Gal.  3:27; 
I.  Cor.  1:12;  6:11).  Several  explanations  of  this  usage  are  offered. 
(1)  Baptism  in  the  name  of  one  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  really  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity.  (2)  When  “in  the  name  of  Jesus”  or 
kindred  expressions  are  used,  it  is  not  necessary  to  understand 
them  as  formulas,  but  simply  as  an  indication  that  the  persons 
were  baptized  into  allegiance  to  Jesus,  hence  the  Trinitarian 
formula  may  have  been  used.  (3)  The  shorter  and  simpler  form 
was  the  earlier  and  the  original.  The  Trinitarian  formula  repre¬ 
sents  a  later  development.  The  latter,  in  fact,  is  not  met  with  after 
St.  Mt.  28:19  until  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr 
(Apol.  1 :6i),  and  in  these  it  is  not  identical  with  the  Gospel  formula. 
(4)  In  the  age  of  the  Apostles  there  was  no  fixed  formula. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  Christ  did  not  emphasize  a  formula  at 
all.  Ideas  with  him  were  more  valuable  than  words.  The  Apostles, 
perhaps,  saw  this,  hence  their  freedom  in  using  other  terms.  Jesus 
probably  uttered  the  words  of  this  Trinitarian  formula,  as  He  did 
those  of  the  Lord’s  prayer :  as  a  model  and  a  standard ;  to  suggest, 
not  to  stereotype.  By  adhesion  to  the  letter,  the  spirit  of  both 
prayer  and  formula  have  been  largely  lost.  Yet  the  form  is  only 
valuable  as  a  conserver  of  the  idea.  Eternal  vigilance,  however,  is 
the  price  of  freedom  from  the  curse  of  formalism. 

1  St.  Paul  even  seems  to  place  but  slight  emphasis  upon  the  duty 
of  an  Apostle  to  baptize. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


193 


specific  ecclesiastical  regime,  orthodox  in  faith,  and  regular  in 
ministry.  This  seems  to  be  the  idea  often  met  with  among 
Anglicans,  Episcopalians,  and  Roman  and  Greek  Catholics ; 
among  those  who  boast  of  being  Historic  churches  and  of  pos¬ 
sessing  Historic  Ministries.  " Historicity ”  may  be  a  very  good 
thing,  but  certainly  it  is  worthless  in  this  respect.  This  theory, 
in  fact,  attains  the  acme  of  materialism.  The  promise  of  Jesus 
is  not  thus  restricted,  nor  is  it  absolute.  The  principle  enun¬ 
ciated  is  universal  and  eternal,  and  conditional.  The  condition 
of  Christ’s  presence  is  compliance  with  His  command.  Those 
who  go,  truly  baptize,  and  teach  mankind — be  they  priest  or 
minister,  layman  or  clergyman,  man  or  woman,  Catholic  or 
Protestant — are  assured  of  the  constant  presence  of  their  Lord. 
The  only  sane  Apostolic  Succession,  indeed,  is  along  the  line 
of  altruistic  endeavor.  To  interpret  it  otherwise  is  blind  ego¬ 
tism,  and  little  short  of  blasphemy.  Most  Apostolic  is  he  who 
most  Apostolic  does.  The  ample  evidence  for  this  truth  is  the 
patent  divine  blessing  which  has  rested,  and  now  rests  upon  the 
Apostolic  labors  of  the  Denominational  Churches,  and  the  non- 
Episcopal  Ministries.  The  Apostolic  Succession  of  Jesus,  in¬ 
deed,  includes  Mackaye  of  Uganda,  the  Baptist  Judson,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Chalmers,  no  less  than  the  proud  occupants  of  an 
“Historic  Episcopate,”  and  it  includes  the  latter  only  as  they 
go T  truly  baptize,  and  truly  teach. 

In  order  that  this  brotherhood  might  have  permanent  ex¬ 
pression,  a  permanent  bond  of  union,  and  also  a  means  of  fellow¬ 
ship  with  Himself,  Jesus  instituted  “The  Lord’s  Supper.”  On 
the  eve  of  the  Crucifixion,  when  reclining  at  the  evening  meal, 
in  the  quiet  of  the  upper  chamber  in  Jerusalem,  Jesus  enacted 
the  supreme  parable  of  His  life.  Here  His  parabolic  genius 
attains  its  highest  manifestation.  Following  the  example  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets,  who  frequently  illustrated  and  rendered  im¬ 
pressive  some  salient  truth  by  means  of  dramatic  actions,  the 
Lord  “took  the  two  simplest  and  most  universal  representa¬ 
tions  of  sustaining  food,  bread  that  strengtheneth  man’s  heart, 
and  wine  that  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  man,  and  employed 
them  as  the  universal  representatives  of  spiritual  food,  of  His 
body  broken,  and  His  blood  poured  out.”  His  action  is  pre¬ 
cisely  what  we  would  expect  from  our  knowledge  of  Him,  and 
of  His  idea.  What  could  be  more  fitting  than  that  He  embody 


194 


Jesus’  Idea 


the  salient  purpose  and  idea  for  which  He  stood  in  some  signal 
act  as  a  permanent  memorial  of  His  aim,  now  that  He  was 
going  away?  What  more  typical  of  His  peculiar  genius? 
According  to  St.  Mark’s  account,  “As  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took 
bread,  and  blessed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said, 
Take,  eat:  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when 
he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them:  and  they  all  drank  of 
it.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testa¬ 
ment,  which  is  shed  for  many.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will 
drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  that  I 
drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God”  (St.  Mk.  i4:22-25).1 

Whatever  else  this  action  of  Jesus  involved,  it  involved  at 
least  the  idea  of  union  and  of  brotherhood.  It  is  well  said  that 
“food  has  ever  been  the  token  of  unity — the  bond  of  equal  inter¬ 
course.”  “Refusal  to  take  food  together  is  the  symbol  of  ex¬ 
clusiveness  and  caste  distinction.”  The  Jew  could  not  eat 
with  the  Gentile,  we  know,  yet  Jesus  makes  a  common  meal  the 
permanent  symbol  of  the  union  of  His  followers  without  regard 
to  sex,  condition  or  race.2 3  This  fact  is  tremendously  significant : 
the  very  presupposition  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  indeed,  is  the  sense 
of  brotherhood.  Yet  to-day  the  rite  so  redolent  of  brother¬ 
hood  is  the  symbol  largely  of  division  and  of  strife.  The  re¬ 
quirement  of  brotherhood,  in  fact,  is  often  ignored  for  some 

1  Four  accounts  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  are  found 
in  the  New  Testament:  St.  Mt.  26:26-29;  St.  Mk.  14:22-25;  St.  Luke 
22:17-20;  I.  Cor.  11 :24ff.  The  accounts  in  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark  are  virtually  the  same;  while  those  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul 
present  minor  differences.  It  is  singular  that  neither  St.  Matthew 
nor  St.  Mark  record  the  words :  “Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  ” 
which  are  recorded  by  St.  Luke  and  by  St.  Paul.  The  earliest 
account,  however,  is  that  given  in  I.  Cor.  11 :24,  which  represents 
these  words  as  spoken  by  Jesus.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain 
that  the  occasion  and  the  significance  of  the  Lord’s  action  at  the 
Last  Supper  would  more  and  more  commend  itself  to  the  growing 
insight  of  the  Apostles,  as  worthy  of  a  permanent  memorial.  This 
will  appear  as  we  proceed. 

It  is  probable  that  the  “blessing”  given  by  Christ  was  akin  to 
those  used  at  their  meals  by  the  Jews.  Thus  at  the  present  day  the 
following  blessing  is  said  over  the  bread :  “Blessed  art  thou,  O 
Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe,  who  bringest  forth  bread  from 
the  earth,”  and  before  drinking  wine :  “Blessed  art  thou  ,  ,  •  who 
createst  the  fruit  of  the  vine.” 

3 “Drink  ye  all”  “They  all  drank.” 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


J95 


requirement  of  a  fancied  faith. 

This  thought,  however,  does  not  exhaust  the  significance  of 
the  rite.  While  there  is  a  strict  unity  of  conception  underlying 
the  act  of  Jesus,  many  subordinate  and  diverse  elements  are 
included.  About  a  year  before  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  Jesus  had  engaged  in  a  very  remarkable  conversation 
with  the  Jews  at  Capernaum,  which  cost  Him  the  allegiance  of 
several  of  His  disciples.1  The  meaning  of  His  enigmatical  lan¬ 
guage  on  this  occasion,  if  hidden  from  the  Jews,  was  at  least  pat¬ 
ent  to  spiritual  insight.  The  idea  was  that  Jesus  was  the  life  of 

1  “Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread 
from  Heaven;  but  my  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread  from 
Heaven.  .  .  .  Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life:  he  that 
cometh  to  me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he  that  believeth  on  me 
shall  never  thirst.”  The  Jews  did  not  understand;  they  “murmured 
at  him,  because  he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose 
father  and  mother  we  know?  how  is  it  then  that  he  saith,  I  came 
down  from  heaven.”  Jesus,  however,  undismayed,  asserted  with 
greater  positiveness,  “I  am  that  bread  of  life;  your  fathers  did  eat 
manna  in  the  wilderness,  and  are  dead.  This  is  the  bread  which 
cometh  down  from  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not 
die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven ;  if 
any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  forever:  and  the  bread 
that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the 
world.”  The  antagonism  of  the  Jews  became  more  pronounced: 
“How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?”  Jesus,  however, 
replied,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you. 
Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal 
life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat 
indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and 
drinketh  my  blood  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living 
Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father :  so  he  that  eateth 
me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me.  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down 
from  heaven:  not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna,  and  are  dead: 
he  that  eateth  of  this  bread  shall  live  forever.”  In  consequence 
of  this  teaching,  “many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walketh 
no  more  with  him.”  Jesus,  however,  retracted  nothing;  He  only 
added  the  significant  remark :  “It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth ; 
the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spirit,  and  they  are  life”  (St.  John  6:32  ff).  St.  Peter  and 
the  Twelve,  however,  even  if  they  did  not  understand,  remained 
faithful;  the  former,  indeed,  seized  the  opportunity  to  attest  again 
his  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah:  “Thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.” 


196 


Jesus y  Idea 


the  soul ;  that  He  was  to  the  spiritual  life  of  man  exactly  what 
bread — the  staff  of  life — was  to  the  physical  life:  its  nourish¬ 
ment;  that  only  by  “feeding  upon  Him,  could  man  truly  live” 
“I  am  your  nourishment,”  when  translated  into  figurative  speech, 
became,  “my  flesh  is  your  bread,  my  blood  your  drink.”  Renan 
may  well  remark:  “Jesus  was,  at  once,  very  idealistic  in  his  con¬ 
ceptions,  and  very  materialistic  in  his  expression  of  them.” 
So,  at  the  Last  Supper,  when  great  thoughts  must  have  agitated 
His  mind,  and  great  affections  stirred  His  heart,  Jesus  person¬ 
ally  present  and  before  the  very  eyes  of  the  disciples,  took  bread, 
and  showing  it  to  them,  said,  “this  is  my  body”;  showing  also 
the  wine,  “this  is  my  blood,” — action  and  language  alike  signi¬ 
fying,  “I  am  your  life  ”  His  whole  desire,  indeed,  was  that 
He  might  be  their  life;  that  they  might  feed  upon  Him,  might 
drink  Him.  Wisdom,  in  Prov.  9:5,  is  represented  as  saying, 
“Come,  eat  of  my  bread,  and  drink  of  the  wine  which  I  have 
mingled.”  So  Jesus  represents  Himself  as  giving  Himself  to 
be  eaten  and  drunk.  As  Wisdom  desires  to  be  “spiritually  ap¬ 
propriated  and  assimilated,”  so  Jesus  desires  that  He — His 
thoughts ,  His  aims ,  His  spirit — may  become  part  and  parcel, 
nay,  the  very  essence  of  the  individual  life.  If  the  Lord’s  Supper 
was  enacted  without  the  use  of  the  words,  “Do  this  in  remem¬ 
brance  of  me,”  it  was  then  simply  the  enunciation  symbolically 
of  the  universal  principle  underlying  the  conversation  with  the 
Jews  in  Capernaum.  If,  however,  as  we  believe,  the  Supper 
was  to  be  a  perpetual  memorial,  Jesus  pleads  that  in  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  rite  there  may  be  a  spiritual  assimilation  of 
Himself  in  His  ideas,  His  aspirations  and  His  spirit;  that  the 
participants  may  no  longer  live,  but  that  He  may  live  in  them.1 

Jesus,  however,  desired  something  further:  a  feeding  upon 
His  body  as  broken and  a  drinking  of  His  blood  as  “shed” 
or  “poured  out  ”  In  the  Last  Supper  He  advanced  a  step 
further  than  in  the  teaching  given  at  Capernaum.  “Flesh”  and 

1  The  failure  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  seems  to  have  so  much 
of  the  “mind  of  Christ,”  to  mention  the  institution  of  Baptism,  or 
of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  while  it  especially  emphasizes  in  the  third 
chapter  the  reality  for  which  baptism  stands — a  new  birth  by 
water  and  by  Spirit — and  in  the  sixth  chapter,  the  reality  which 
the  Lord’s  Supper  represents — a  feeding  upon  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  is  very  remarkable,  and  may  indicate  at  least  that  the 
realities  are  of  more  importance  than  the  symbols. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


197 


“blood”  have  now  become  “a  body  broken  ’  and  “blood  shed.” 
The  change  is  subtle,  yet  essential,  and  most  suggestive.  The 
idea  of  His  life  as  sacrifice — a  living  death — Jesus  indeed  brings 
vividly  before  His  disciples  at  the  Last  Supper  under  the  figure 
of  a  “body  broken”  and  “blood  shed,”  with  the  added  thought 
that  His  disciples  are  to  feed  upon  that  life.  They  are  to  eat 
and  drink  not  merely  His  body  and  blood — that  is  His  life — 
but  His  life  as  it  is  represented  by  a  broken  body  and  shed  blood, 
i.  e.,  by  service  and  by  sacrifice.  How  splendid  His  idea  was 
now  becomes  apparent.  The  conception  was  ethical,  practical, 
vital.  His  life  of  sacrifice  and  service  was  to  become  the  essence 
of  their  life;  was  to  be  bodied  forth  in  their  lives  as  they  repre¬ 
sented  Him.1 

Jesus’  thought,  however,  goes  even  a  step  further.  Content 
with  suggesting  that  the  bread  be  interpreted  simply  as  His 
body,  the  cup  of  wine,  representing  His  shed  blood,  is  made  to 
signify  a  “covenant,”  or  a  “new  covenant .”  “For  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  New  Testament  (covenant)  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins”  (St.  Mt.  26:28). 2  In  explanation  of 
this  allusion,  our  minds  instinctively  revert  to  the  blood-shedding 
which  inaugurated  the  Covenant  or  alliance,  described  in  Ex. 
24I4-8.3  Our  Lord,  indeed,  means  that  just  as  Moses  sprinkled 
blood  alike  on  altar  and  people,  sealed  an  alliance  between  Israel 
and  Jehovah,  so  did  His  blood  shed  for  men,  i.  e.,  His  life  of  sac¬ 
rifice,  obedient  to  God  even  unto  the  death  of  the  Cross,  seal  a 
new  alliance  between  God  and  man.  This  alliance,  the  cup  of 

1  See  Appendix  H.,  “The  Significance  of  the  Sufferings  and  Death 
of  Jesus.” 

2  “The  blood  of  a  covenant  was  not  life-blood  flowing  in  the  veins 
of  the  living,  but  life-blood  shed  in  sacrificial  death.” 

3  “And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  rose  up 
early  in  the  morning,  and  builded  an  altar  under  the  hill,  and 
twelve  pillars,  according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  And  he 
sent  young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt 
offerings,  and  sacrificed  peace  offerings  of  oxen  unto  the  Lord. 
And  Moses  took  half  of  the  blood,  and  put  it  in  basins ;  and 
half  of  the  blood  he  sprinkled  on  the  altar,  and  he  took  the  book 
of  the  covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people :  and  they 
said,  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient. 
And  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  people,  and 
said,  Behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
with  you  concerning  all  these  words.” 


198 


Jesus’  Idea 


wine,  representing  the  shed  blood  of  Christ,  signified.  Of  this 
cup,  i.  e.,  this  new  alliance,  Jesus  would  have  His  followers 
drink ;  entering  fully  into  all  the  privileges  and  the  obligations 
of  the  New  Covenant,  of  which  Jeremiah  had  sung  so  nobly: 
“Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new 
covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah” 
(31 :3 1 )  ;  and  in  which  the  law  of  God  should  be  written  upon 
the  heart,  the  knowledge  of  God  abound,  and  mankind  exult  in 
the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  (vs.  33,  34).  Thus  we  gain  a 
glimpse  of  the  august  idea  of  Jesus  as  He  instituted  the  Lord’s 
Supper.1 

Returning  now  to  first  principles,  we  find  that  e/c/cX^o-ia,  as 
used  in  the  Gospels,  is  comprehensive  enough  to  include  the  his¬ 
toric  churches  of  Christendom,  the  Protestant  communions,  and 
that  large  number  of  men  and  women,  who,  unaffiliated  with 
either  Catholicism  or  Protestantism,  manifest,  “practical  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  ‘Lordship  of  Jesus’  in  their  lives.”  The  word 
is  large  enough  to  take  in  those  who  are  frequently  outside 
the  church;  to  render  valid  the  ministries  now  deemed  invalid 
or  irregular;  to  break  down  many  figments  of  the  ecclesiastical 
imagination  now  sundering  man;  and  to  include  all  who  ac¬ 
knowledge  the  Messianic  Lordship  of  Jesus  in  one  noble  and 
triumphant  whole.  What  could  do  more  to  advance  the  spirit 
of  brotherhood  among  men  than  the  free  and  full  recognition 
of  this  fact?  The  church,  however,  which  was  to  be  the  mighty 
embodiment  and  exponent  of  the  brotherhood  of  man,  has  been, 
and  is  to-day,  the  scene  of  the  keenest  violation  of  that  sense, 
and  largely,  as  we  believe,  because  the  fundamental  meaning 
of  €KK\rjaLa  was  neither  understood  nor  borne  in  mind.  “If 
the  salt  shall  have  lost  its  savor,  wherewith  shall  it  be  salted?” 
The  unity  of  the  early  church  was  due  to  the  vivid  conscious- 

1  That  the  rite  was  one  of  extreme  solemnity,  and  destined  for 
the  weal  or  woe  of  the  participants,  St.  Paul  indicates  in  the  sober 
words :  “Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  dis¬ 
cerning  the  Lord’s  body”  (I  Cor.  11:27-29).  Realizing  the 
significance  of  the  rite,  we  can  see  the  utter  mockery  in  unworthy 
participation. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  199 

ness  of  brotherhood;  and  if  church  unity  is  ever  to  come  in  the 
future,  it  will  come,  and  come  only,  through  a  deepening  con¬ 
viction  of  the  undeniable  brotherhood  of  all  who  are  seeking 
to  possess  the  mind,  the  spirit,  and  the  life  of  Jesus — brother¬ 
hood  which  outweighs  all  differences.  He  labors  best  for  church 
unity  who  seeks  to  deepen  the  sense  of  Christian  brotherhood; 
not  he  who  advocates  impracticable  schemes  which  will  prove 
but  iridescent  dreams. 

The  history  of  Christianity  has  been  largely  the  history  of 
misplaced  emphasis;  but  happily  the  day  of  ecclesiasticism  is 
passing,  and  the  day  of  vital  Christianity  is  dawning.  Prior 
to  the  Reformation  we  have  the  era  of  triumphant  ecclesiasti¬ 
cism.  Since  the  Reformation  the  age  of  credal  statement  has 
held  well-nigh  sovereign  sway;  but  signs  are  not  wanting  that 
our  own  time  is  witnessing  an  ever-increasing  return  to  Christi¬ 
anity  in  its  simplicity,  its  pristine  power  and  beauty.  To  under¬ 
stand  the  large  and  generous  meaning  of  eK/cXrjo-ta  as  it  is  used 
in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  is  a  step  in  that  direction.  It  means 
the  dissipation  of  prejudice;  the  acceptance  of  the  true  instead  of 
the  false;  the  placing  of  emphasis  upon  the  unifying  bond  of 
brotherhood ;  the  dethronement  of  invidious  distinctions ;  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  all  taint  of  insulting  condescension.  Above  all,  it  will 
banish  from  the  world  forever  that  most  unjustifiable  and  ob¬ 
noxious  of  world-wide  and  omni-denominational  phenomena,  the 
prolific  source  of  religious  animosity,  the  inveterate  opponent  of 
brotherhood — the  ecclesiastic.  We  mean  the  man  who  is  the 
incarnation  of  provincialism;  who  forgets  that  he  was  a  man 
before  he  was  a  clergyman ;  who,  as  a  clergyman,  takes  but  little 
interest  in,  and  has  but  little  to  do  with,  the  larger  affairs  of 
life — political,  educational,  social,  temporal — remaining  but  a 
cipher  in  his  community,  so  far  as  these  are  concerned;  the 
victim  of  that  most  fallacious  of  heresies,  the  divorcing  of  the 
sacred  and  the  secular.  We  mean  the  man  who  also  forgets 
that  he  was  a  minister  of  Christ,  pledged  to  His  undying  service, 
and  to  profound  sympathy  with  every  movement  for  God  and 
righteousness,  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  her  noble  Bene¬ 
dict  XV,  all  along  the  line,  to  the  Salvation  Army;  pledged 
to  these  by  Baptism  long  before  he  assumed  the  ministerial  yoke 
of  his  respective  denomination.  We  mean  the  man  who  loves 
his  sect  more  than  his  fellow-man,  more  than  the  universal 


200 


Jesus 1  Idea 


priesthood  of  all  Christians ;  whose  eyes  are  blind  to  the  distinct 
excellencies  and  achievements  of  other  religious  bodies  ;  the  man 
of  little  weight,  narrow  vision,  circumscribed  sympathy;  the 
bane  of  the  Church,  and  often  met  with.  Such  a  man,  indeed, 
reverses  the  order  of  nature,  and  of  chronology;  he  is  the  viola¬ 
tion  of  their  laws.  Adequate  appreciation  of  the  essential  mean¬ 
ing  of  kKK.\y)cia  would  rid  the  world  of  him,  and  in  his  stead 
would  give  a  band  of  strong,  large-visioned,  spiritually  minded 
men,  who  would  remember  that  they  were  first  men ;  that  noth¬ 
ing  of  concern  to  man  was  foreign  to  them ;  that,  secondly,  they 
were  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and,  last,  but  not 
least,  they  were  clergymen  of  their  respective  denominations,  and 
that  this  relationship  only  accentuates,  intensifies,  and  conse¬ 
crates  the  former  obligations.  Such  men  will  the  eKK\rj(jLa  of 
Jesus  give  us;  and  it  means  the  passing  forever  of  that  hapless 
and  hopeless  mediocrity  which  now  so  often,  by  virtue  of  its 
very  mediocrity,  basks  in  the  sunshine  of  ecclesiastical  favor  and 
preferment,  and  the  elevation  of  that  substantial  worth  and 
avowed  ability  which  often  pine  and  wither,  unnoticed  and  un¬ 
appreciated. 

Led  by  men  of  this  type,  the  Church  would  assume  the 
relationship  toward  the  Kingdom  which  Jesus  intended  it  to 
assume.  The  Kingdom  is  the  far-larger  category.1  The  sub¬ 
lime  conception,  indeed,  is  that  of  Isaiah:  “The  government 
shall  be  upon  his  (Messiah’s)  shoulder;  ...  of  the  in¬ 
crease  of  his  government  there  shall  be  no  end”  (9:6-7).  The 
Church  is  simply  the  witness  to  this  purpose,  and  the  chief 
instrumentality  to  this  end.  The  Church,  indeed,  is  not  an  end 
in  itself,  but  a  means;  it  is  destined  to  be  as  temporary  as  the 
Jewish  k.KK\r)(jt(i  was.  Both,  in  fact,  derive  their  importance 
from  their  relationship  to  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  the  effi¬ 
ciency  of  both  is  to  be  tested  solely  as  they  minister  to  that  end. 
The  visible  Church  is  not  in  itself  divine;  it  is  the  spiritual 
life  of  which  the  Church  is  but  one  manifestation  that  is  divine. 
The  life  is  far  more  than  its  embodiment,  and  can  assume  vary¬ 
ing  forms.  The  malady  of  the  Church  to-day  is  precisely  the 
malady  which  afflicted  the  Jewish  Church  ages  ago:  these  truths 
are  forgotten.  Much  of  our  religion,  indeed,  is  Judaism  under 

1  The  term  “kingdom’’  occurs  one  hundred  and  twelve  times  in 
the  Gospels;  the  word  “church”  only  twice. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom  201 

the  veil  of  Christianity,  and  there  is  the  need  to-day  of  a  race 
of  prophets  to  keep  the  Church  true  to  her  allegiance,  though 
their  task  were  as  thankless  and  as  futile  as  that  of  the  Ancient 
Prophets  of  Israel. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  Kingdom,  indeed,  one  must  look 
with  much  commiseration  upon  the  Church,  both  of  the  past 
and  of  the  present.  Truly  it  is  a  “tragic,  humiliating,  dis¬ 
enchanting  tale.”  In  the  words  of  the  late  Professor  Bruce, 
“To  be  enthusiastic  about  the  Church  in  its  present  condition 
is  impossible,  to  hope  for  its  future  is  not  impossible;  but  if 
it  were,  there  is  no  cause  for  despair.  Christ  will  ever  remain, 
the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever;  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  will  remain,  a  kingdom  that  cannot  be  moved”  (“The  King¬ 
dom  of  God”  p.  272).  Indeed,  the  Church  of  Jesus,  which  was 
to  lead  the  world  away  from  the  temporal  and  the  material, 
has  itself  become  painfully  engrossed  in  that  from  which  it  was 
to  deliver.  Civilization  is  nominally  Christian,  but  not  prac¬ 
tically  so.  Men  detect  the  falsity  of  the  Church’s  faith  and 
practise,  and,  when  not  angered,  are  profoundly  saddened.  In 
fact,  the  Church  is  largely  a  miserable  travesty,  a  lamentable 
failure;  it  is  too  often  a  club  of  self-satisfied  egotists,  or  to 
express  the  truth  variously,  the  mausoleum  of  effete  respect¬ 
ability,  the  hopeless  tomb  of  ardent  aspiration  and  spiritual  in¬ 
sight,  and  the  very  incarnation  of  those  principles  which  cruci¬ 
fied  the  Jesus  whom  it  professes  to  worship.  “A  prophet  is 
not  without  honor  save  in  his  own  country,”  is  emphatically  true 
of  the  Church.  Instead  of  being  a  school  of  the  prophets,  it 
is  usually  their  sepulcher.  To  such  an  extent  is  this  the  case 
that  many  feel  that  if  they  would  be  Christian,  they  must 
remain  apart  from  the  visible  Church.1 

1  If  these  strictures  upon  the  Christian  Church  be  deemed  severe, 
the  writer  can  only  say  that  an  experience  and  observation  of  some 
twenty  odd  years  has  convinced  him  of  their  substantial  justice. 
If  Christ,  His  spirit  and  aims,  are  the  soul  and  essence  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  then  the  World’s  greatest  need  to-day  is  a  Society  for  the 
conversion  of  Bishops  and  Clergy.  We  have  organizations  for  all 
things  save  the  one  thing  needful.  Not  that  the  writer  would  cast 
any  aspersion  upon  the  characters  of  these  men,  but  he  would  chal¬ 
lenge  the  legitimacy  of  their  conceptions  and  methods.  He  is  often 
impelled  to  ask.  Where  is  Jesus  in  the  miserable  mess?  In  the 
hearts  of  many  humble  worshipers.  Yes !  but  the  closer  you  get 
to  Organized  Christianity,  the  so-called  Church  of  Jesus,  the  less 


202 


Jesus’  Idea 


In  conclusion,  let  us  say  that  the  Reformation,  with  its 
convulsive  throes,  was  an  effort  of  the  divine  life  in  man  to 
free  itself  from  an  intolerable  ecclesiastical  thraldom.  In  some 
respects,  however,  it  was  the  birth  of  a  new  thraldom ;  an  intel¬ 
lectual  slavery  being  substituted  for  an  ecclesiastical  slavery. 
To-day,  the  noble  work  of  the  Reformation  must  be  completed. 
The  Church  of  Jesus  must  be  organized  on  the  principle  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Ridding  itself  of  its  Pharisaism,  which 
throughout  the  ages  has  tithed  the  mint,  anise,  and  cummin 
of  ministry,  belief,  and  lesser  things,  while  neglecting  the  weigh¬ 
tier  matter  of  the  Law — the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  Church  must 
awaken  to  the  mind  of  Jesus.  The  Church  must  have  a  vision 
of  the  Master’s  purpose,  must  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  bleeding 
heart  of  humanity.  The  Kingdom  of  God  must  become  the 
salvation  of  the  Church.  Breaking  the  fetters  of  ecclesiasticism, 
intellectualism,  and  traditionalism,  the  Church  must  be  free. 
Men  must  learn  that  when  they  think  and  act  in  the  terms  and 
in  the  spirit  of  ecclesiasticism,  they  are  neither  thinking  nor 
acting  in  the  terms  or  in  the  spirit  of  Christianity;  that  the 
true  Church  of  Jesus  cannot  be  identified  with  any  nor  with  all 
ecclesiastical  organizations;  that  it  can  only  be  identified  with 
those  in  every  ecclesiastical  organization,  who,  possessing  the 
mind  and  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  are  striving  to  bring  about  the 
sovereignty  of  God,  and  that  the  “Church”  can  only  be  identi¬ 
fied  with  the  Kingdom  of  God  when  it  is  interpreted  in  this 
sense.  When  our  Divinity  Schools  shall  be  instinct  with  the 
idea  and  with  the  spirit  of  the  Kingdom,  rather  than  with  de¬ 
nominational  shibboleths;  when  Sunday-School  instruction  is 
based  upon  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom,  then  will  the  Church  go 
forth  to  conquer,  a  clearer  ethical  note  will  be  sounded,  and 

of  Jesus  you  find.  Verily,  to  be  ecclesiastically  minded  is  death. 
It  may  be  said  with  much  truthfulness  that  the  three  chief  foes 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  are  human  sin,  human  ignorance,  and 
ecclesiasticism ;  and  really  the  foes  might  be  narrowed  to  two,  for 
ecclesiasticism  is  but  a  department  of  human  ignorance — ignorance 
of  the  Spirit,  the  Aim  and  Purpose  of  Jesus;  an  ignorance  which 
has  furnished  the  Church-conditions  which  now  largely  prevail.  The 
blind  have  led  the  blind  and,  as  usual,  leader  and  led  have  fallen 
into  the  ditch.  The  day  calls  preeminently  for  the  intellectual 
emancipation  of  the  ministry  primarily,  then  the  emancipation  and 
the  salvation  of  the  Church  may  follow. 


The  Church  and  the  Kingdom 


203 


a  more  Christian  life  lived.1 

1  A  portion  of  this  Chapter  appeared  in  an  article  entitled,  “The 
Essential  Meaning  of  ’Ekklesia,”  which  was  published  in  The 
Biblical  World  for  March,  1905.  It  now  appears  here  through  the 
courtesy  of  the  Editors  of  that  Journal. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


THE  KINGDOM  AND  THE  SUPERNATURAL 

The  reader  of  the  Gospels  is  soon  aware  that  he  dwells  in 
the  midst  of  the  Miraculous.  Jesus  is  constantly  represented 
as  possessing  miraculous  power,  and  indeed,  according  to  the 
Gospel  story,  He  manifested  no  surprise  at  his  ability  to  perform 
miracles.  That  which  appears  extraordinary  to  us,  appeared 
to  him  seemly  and  natural.  The  suspicion  with  which  the 
modern  man  approaches  this  subject  was  utterly  foreign  to 
Him;  for  Jesus,  the  supernatural  was,  in  fact,  the  natural. 
While  attempts  have  been  made  to  strip  the  Gospel  of  its  super¬ 
natural  element,  they  have  never  met  with  entire  success;1  yet 
the  suspicion  lingers  in  many  minds  that  the  supernatural  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  Gospel  is  not  really  credible  in  view  of  the  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  present  era,  and  where  this  element  is  readily 
accepted,  there  is  often  little  understanding  of  its  relationship 
to  Jesus’  idea.  The  writer  believes  in  the  credibility  of  the 
miraculous  and  that  it  bore  close  and  intimate  relationship  to 
Jesus’  idea.  Before  we  proceed,  however,  to  see  how  this  could 
be,  let  us  inquire  what  we  mean  by  the  word  “miracle.” 

If  we  accept  the  etymological  meaning,  “the  original  idea 
in  the  word  ‘wonder’  (Latin,  ‘miraculum,’  English,  ‘mir¬ 
acle’)  seems  to  have  been  that  of  turning  aside  through  a  feeling 

1  The  words  of  the  author  of  “Ecce  Homo”  are  interesting  in 
this  connection :  “Miracles  play  so  important  a  part  in  Christ’s 
scheme  that  any  theory  which  would  represent  them  as  due  entirely 
to  the  imagination  of  His  followers  or  of  a  later  age,  destroys  the 
credibility  of  the  documents,  not  partially  but  wholly,  and  leaves 
Christ  a  person  as  mythical  as  Hercules”  (p.  51).  Speaking  of 
the  Gospel  History,  Harnack  says :  “Much  that  was  formerly  re¬ 
jected  has  been  reestablished  on  a  close  investigation,  and  in  the 
light  of  comprehensive  experience.  Who  in  these  days,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  could  make  such  short  work  of  the  miraculous  cures  in  the 
Gospels  as  was  the  custom  of  scholars  formerly?”  (“Christianity 
and  History,”  p.  63.) 


204 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  205 

of  fear  or  awe  (see  Skeat’s  Etymological  Dictionary).  The 
savage,  ‘ignorant  of  the  very  rudiments  of  science,  and  trying 
to  get  at  the  meaning  of  life  by  what  the  senses  seem  to  tell’ 
(to  quote  Tylor,  ‘Anthropology,’  p.  343)  would  often  turn  aside 
when  he  came  face  to  face  with  something  new,  unexpected,  or 
extraordinary.”  Even  to-day  the  popular  idea  is  that  a  miracle 
is  an  event  which  contravenes  the  laws  of  nature  and  causes 
wonder  and  astonishment.  This  interpretation,  however,  will 
not  satisfy  the  requirement  of  the  New  Testament.  There  a 
miracle  is  much  more  than  a  wonder.  The  Greek  word,  teras , 
wonder  or  portent,  is  used  always  in  conjunction  with  another 
word — semeion — a  sign.  Now  a  sign  is  always  an  indication  of 
something;  the  distinct  element  of  purpose  is  introduced.  This 
is  emphatically  true  of  the  New  Testament  conception  of  mir¬ 
acles.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  “a  miracle,  then,  may  be  described 
as  an  event  manifesting  purpose,  occurring  in  the  physical  world, 
which  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  of  its  known  forces,  and 
which,  therefore,  we  ascribe  to  a  spiritual  cause.  It  is  an  inter¬ 
ference  with  the  ordinary  action  of  the  forces  of  nature  on  the 
part  of  the  Author  of  Nature — an  event  brought  about,  not 
by  any  observed  combination  of  physical  forces,  but  by  a  direct 
Divine  volition.” 

Now  in  view  of  Jesus’  idea  of  God  and  Nature,  these  events 
and  interferences,  which  are  such  stumbling-blocks  to  the  modern 
consciousness,  were  eminently  rational  and  sane.  “Nature”  did 
not  mean  to  Him  what  it  often  means  to  the  mind  of  to-day. 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  this  word  is  used  commonly  in  three 
senses.  In  the  Scientific  sense,  nature  usually  signifies  the  sum- 
total  of  physical  phenomena.  It  includes  the  mineral,  the  vege¬ 
table,  and  the  animal  kingdom;  it  is  the  material  universe,  the 
realm  of  physical  law.  Speaking  generally,  the  second  sense  of 
the  word  may  be  called  the  Moral  sense.  Nature,  then,  includes 
not  merely  the  physical  but  the  moral  realm.  Man  is  dealt  with 
as  a  moral  agent,  as  well  as  an  animal;  nature  embraces  not 
only  physical  but  moral  phenomena.  The  third  sense  is  the 
Religious  sense.  Nature  stands  for  a  totality,  the  sum  of  all 
things — the  Universe  and  God.  And  in  this  sense,  the  relation 
of  God  to  the  Universe  is  not  that  of  a  God  who,  after  the 
Deistic  idea,  having  made  all  things,  sits  far-removed — an  ab¬ 
sentee  God,  who  simply  lets  things  go — pursuing  “an  eternal  pol- 


206 


Jesus’  Idea 


icy  of  non-intervention.”  Nor  is  the  relation  that  of  a  God 
who,  after  the  Pantheistic  idea,  is  so  intimately  associated  with 
his  creation  that  he  practically  finds  full  and  exhaustive  ex¬ 
pression  in  it — the  creator  being  swallowed  up  in  the  creation. 
The  Scylla  of  Deism — a  cold,  absentee,  transcendent  overlord 
— is  not  to  be  escaped  by  running  into  the  Charybdis  of  Panthe¬ 
ism — a  practical  Atheism,  with  its  impotent,  impoverished,  yet 
present  Deity.  Creation  is  rather  the  realm  of  a  God,  who  is 
superior  to  it,  yet  immanent  in  it;  it  is  the  sphere  of  his  present 
activity.1  In  this  view,  nature  includes  not  only  the  natural, 
but  the  supernatural  as  well.  The  supernatural,  in  fact,  is  lost 
in  the  natural,  for  Nature  includes  God. 

This  interpretation  of  “Nature”  undoubtedly  voices  the 
idea  of  Jesus.  He  believed  in  a  “God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth,”  whose  presence  was  all-pervad¬ 
ing.2  And  not  only  was  God  present  everywhere,  but  every¬ 
where  was  He  manifesting  beneficent  activity.  Nature  was  the 
sphere  of  a  present  interest.  “For  of  Him,  and  through  Him, 
and  to  Him ,  are  all  things”  (Rom.  11:36).  The  Man, 
indeed,  whose  love  of  nature  finds  expression  in  so  much  of  His 
teaching  in  respect  to  both  form  and  content,  who  loved  the 
freshness  of  the  open  country,  the  beauty  of  the  borders  of 
the  lake,  and  the  stillness  and  solemnity  of  the  mountain  side, 
could  not  look  but  with  impassioned  interest  upon  the  natural 
world.  It  spoke  to  His  soul  of  the  mystical  and  the  eternal. 
“Nature  was  to  Him  the  living  garment  in  which  the  Eternal 
had  robed  His  mysterious  loveliness.”  Jesus,  indeed,  raised 
no  disquieting  questions.  The  abstract  and  philosophical  rea¬ 
soning  of  the  ancient  Greek  and  of  the  modern  thinker  about 
“Nature”  was  essentially  foreign  to  the  Hebrew.  He  saw 
God  everywhere;  God’s  Hand  was  in  everything.  “The  Lord 

1  The  Divine  Immanence  is,  indeed,  becoming  more  and  more 
apparent  with  the  progress  of  the  scientific  investigation  of  natural 
phenomena. 

2  The  words  of  the  Psalmist  represent  Jesus’  thought:  “Whither 
shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy 
presence?  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there:  if  I  make  my 
bed  in  hell  (hades),  behold,  thou  art  there.  If  I  take  the  wings 
of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea;  even 
there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me” 
(139:7-10). 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  207 


also  thundered  in  the  heavens,  and  the  Highest  gave  his  voice; 
hailstones  and  coals  of  fire”  (Ps.  18:13).  “Fire,  and  hail; 
snow  and  vapors;  stormy  wind  fulfilling  his  word”  (Ps.  1 1 8 : 
8).  Thought,  indeed,  with  the  Hebrew  had  found  its  true 
center.1  Hence  the  supernatural  was  in  a  very  real  sense  the 
natural,  and  what  seems  to  us  miraculous  was,  under  certain 
circumstances,  a  matter  of  course.  (See  Appendix  I.,  “The 
Possibility,  the  Probability,  and  the  Credibility  of  Miracles.”) 

Passing  now  to  the  miracles  themselves,  we  find  that  Jesus 
is  represented  as  able  to  perform  these  works,  whenever  He 
willed  to  do  so,  and  upon  objects  of  a  diversified  character. 
Both  Man  and  Nature  were  the  subjects  of  His  extraordinary 
power.  Further,  the  tone  of  His  miracles  was  always  a  lofty 
one.  Upon  man,  Jesus  constantly  worked  miracles  of  healing. 
A  particularly  interesting  feature  of  these  cures  is  that  they 
are  represented  as  deliverance  from  possession  by  demons  (St. 
Mk.  1:21;  5:1;  St.  Mt.  9:32,  33;  St.  Mk.  7:25;  St.  Mt.  17: 
15;  12:22;  St.  Lu.  13:16).  The  symptoms  manifested  by  the 
sick  and  afflicted  persons,  however,  are  those  of  various  diseases 
now  well  known  to  medical  science.2  The  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  however,  were  eminently  the  children  of  their  age, 
sharing  in  its  light  and  in  its  darkness.  They  fully  believed 
that  demons  entered  into  men,  and  caused  various  bodily  ail¬ 
ments.  This  belief,  indeed,  they  shared  with  the  human  race 
in  the  early  stages  of  its  history;  a  belief  which  has  always 
added  to  humanity’s  weight  of  woe  many  imaginary  terrors 
born  of  this  idea.3  What  Jesus’  degree  of  knowledge  about 

1  “As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  word  ‘nature’  does  not  once  occur  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  was  not  until  Hebraism  came  into  contact 
with  Hellenism  that  the  idea  of  ‘nature’  was  introduced  into  Hebrew 
thought”  (Art.  “Nature.”  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  Vol.  3.  p.  495). 

2  Sometimes  the  “spirit”  is  described  as  possessing  the  very  char¬ 
acter  of  the  disease:  “a  dumb  spirit”  (St.  Mk.  9:17);  “a  spirit  of 
infirmity”  (St.  Lu.  13:11);  “An  unclean  spirit”  (St.  Mt.  12: 
43-45;  St.  Lu.  11:24-26).  In  St.  Luke  4:38,  39,  Jesus  Himself  per¬ 
sonified  the  disease — “fever” — which  was  troubling  Peter’s  mother- 
in-law  :  “he  stood  over  her,  and  rebuked  the  fever.” 

3  Among  the  Greeks,  the  idea  of  demons  causing  a  wasting  sick¬ 
ness,  insanity,  and  epilepsy  is  found.  In  the  New  Testament,  how¬ 
ever,  demons  are  not  regarded  as  the  authors  of  all  sickness  or 
disease  (St.  Mt.  10:8;  St.  Mk.  1:32;  St.  Lu.  6:17,  18).  The  diseases 
represented  there  as  superinduced  by  demons  are  chiefly  of  a 
nervous  order.  The  belief  in  demons  was,  in  reality,  “a  survival  of 


208 


Jesus’  Idea 


this  subject  was,  is  an  interesting  question.  We  may  hold 
either  that  Jesus’  knowledge  of  this  and  similar  subjects  was 
simply  that  of  His  time;  or  that  He  was  omniscient,  but  that 
in  such  matters  He  accommodated  Himself  to  the  thought  of 
His  day;  or  that  we  really  have  no  means  of  determining  the 
extent  of  His  knowledge.  One  thing,  however,  is  evident: 
If  Jesus  desired  to  come  into  touch  with  His  time  He  must 
have  adopted  the  language  and  the  “thought-forms”  of  His 
age.  If  He  was  the  possessor  of  a  superior  medical  knowledge, 
it  is  most  unlikely  that  He  would  have  disturbed  the  minds  of 
the  people  by  any  attempt  to  enlighten  them.  Whether  en¬ 
lightened  or  unenlightened,  He  must  have  used  the  popularly 
accepted  conceptions  as  the  media  of  His  revelation  of  spiritual 
truth.1 

That  the  remarkable  personality  of  Jesus  was  efficacious, 

primitive  Hebrew  beliefs,  which  were  quickened  by  contact  with 
Babylonia,  Persia,  and  Greece.”  The  tendency  to  this  belief  may  be 
thus  explained :  “Early  mankind  instinctively  sought  for  causes,  and 
interpreted  the  forces  and  other  manifestations  of  nature  as  per¬ 
sonal,  i.  e.,  as  emanating  from  beings  analogous  to  himself.  Thus 
primitive  man  dwelt  in  a  cosmic  society  of  superhuman  agencies, 
some  of  which  ministered  to  his  well-being,  and  others  to  his  injury. 
At  the  dawn  of  human  consciousness  man  found  himself  con¬ 
fronted  by  forces  which  he  was  unable  to  control,  and  which 
exercised  a  baleful  or  destructive  influence.  Hurricane,  lightning, 
sunstroke,  plague,  flood  and  earthquake  were  ascribed  to  wrathful 
personal  agencies  whose  malignity  man  would  endeavor  to  avert  or 
appease.”  Jewish  demonology  was  greatly  enriched  by  contact  with 
surrounding  neighbors — Babylonia  for  instance.  This  statement  is 
interesting :  “The  doctrine  of  disease  among  the  ancient  Babylonians 
was  that  the  swarming  demons  could  enter  a  man’s  body  (through 
food  and  drink,  for  instance),  and  cause  sickness.  On  a  fragment 
of  a  tablet,  Budge  has  found  six  evil  spirits  mentioned  by  name. 
The  first  attacked  the  head ;  the  second,  the  lips ;  the  third,  the 
forehead;  the  fourth,  the  breast;  the  fifth,  the  viscera;  the  sixth,  the 
hand”  (See  Articles,  “Demons,”  in  Hasting’s  Bible  Dictionary,  and 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica). 

1  Jesus  was  compelled  to  do  what  any  missionary  to  a  heathen  land 
to-day  is  compelled  to  do:  taking  the  mass  of  confronting  super¬ 
stition,  he  must  use  whatever  he  can  from  it  as  the  vehicle  of  his 
nobler  vision,  rather  than  seek  to  overturn  the  superstitions  at 
once,  arousing  animosity,  and  probably  defeating  the  very  end  which 
he  had  in  view.  Judging  from  the  New  Testament  passages, 
Jesus  seems  to  have  used  the  idea  of  demonology  stripped,  how¬ 
ever,  of  its  grosser  features. 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  209 

to  some  extent,  in  the  cure  of  these  mental  and  bodily  maladies, 
is  to  be  admitted.  Dr.  Sanday  aptly  remarks:  “Given  a  per¬ 
sonality  like  that  of  Jesus,  the  effect  which  it  would  have  upon 
disorders  of  this  character  (nervous)  would  be  strictly  analo¬ 
gous  to  that  which  modern  medicine  would  seek  to  produce. 
The  peculiar  combination  of  commanding  authority  with  ex¬ 
treme  gentleness  and  sympathy  would  be  a  healing  force  of 
which  the  value  could  not  easily  be  exaggerated.”  That  others, 
indeed,  were  able  to  effect  similar  cures  is  evident  from  Jesus’ 
own  words.  “If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do 
your  children  cast  them  out?”  (St.  Mt.  12:27).  Again,  “John 
answered  him,  saying,  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils 
in  thy  name,  and  he  followeth  not  us.  But  Jesus  said,  Forbid 
him  not;  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  miracle  in  my 
name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me”  (St.  Mk.  9:38,  39,  cf. 
St.  Mt.  7:32).  Yet  it  is  to  be  doubted  if  this  power  alone 
will  explain  all  of  Jesus’  miracles  of  healing.1 

Jesus,  however,  wrought  miracles  upon  Nature  as  well  as 
upon  Man.  The  Walking  upon  the  Sea  (St.  Mt.  14:25),  the 
Stilling  of  the  Winds  and  Waves  (St.  Mt.  8:26),  the  Wither¬ 
ing  of  the  Barren  Fig  Tree  (St.  Mt.  21:18),  the  Feeding  of 
the  Four  Thousand  (St.  Mt.  15:32),  and  the  Five  Thou¬ 
sand  (St.  Mt.  14:19),  and  the  Changing  of  Water  into  Wine 
(St.  Jn.  2:1),  alike  testify  to  the  exercise  of  an  extraordinary 
power  over  natural  forces.  The  one  class  of  miracles,  indeed, 
is  as  well  established  as  the  other;  the  evidence  for  the  two 
types  of  miracles  being  found  in  all  the  Gospels.  That  such 
signal  events  should  cause  wonder,  and  arouse  inquiry  as  to  their 
meaning  is  to  be  expected.  What  was  their  significance?  Of 
what  were  they  “signs”?  In  what  way,  indeed,  were  they  re¬ 
lated  to  Jesus’  idea — “the  Kingdom  of  God”? 

That  they  were  credentials  to  induce  men  to  believe  in 
Christ  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
intent  we  may  even  gather  from  the  words  of  the  Master  Him¬ 
self.  “But  I  have  greater  witness  than  that  of  John:  for 

1  The  cures  which  may  be  explained  by  the  influence  of  mind 
over  body  are  probably  found  in  St.  Mt.  8:28;  15:21;  17:14;  12:10; 
12:22;  9:32;  St.  Mk.  1:23;  St.  Lu.  13:11;  St.  Jn.  5:9.  Offering 
insurmountable  obstacles  to  this  explanation  are  the  works  recorded 
in  St.  Mk.  7:32;  8:22;  St.  Mt.  9 .27  \  20:30;  8:14;  9:20;  8:2;  9:23; 
St.  Lu.  14:2;  17:11;  22:50;  7:11;  St.  Jn.  9:1;  11:43. 


210 


J  esus1  Idea 


the  works  which  the  Father  has  given  me  to  finish,  the  same 
works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
me”  (St.  Jn.  5:36).  Again  in  healing  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
Jesus  said:  “But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy), 
I  say  unto  thee,  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  thy 
way  into  thy  house”  (St.  Mk.  2 no).1  Too  great  stress, 
however,  can  easily  be  placed  upon  this  aspect  of  miracles.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  miracles,  as  credentials,  can  not  be 
separated  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  from  the  Person  of 
the  Teacher.  The  three  together  are  the  credentials  of  Christ. 

Indeed,  in  regarding  miracles  as  credentials  of  the  Christ,  we 
must  not  dwell  upon  their  aspect  as  “wonders”  alone.  Regard 
must  be  had  to  their  character  also.  Jesus  was  exceedingly 
careful  in  this  respect,  as  we  see  from  the  Temptation  in¬ 
cident,  especially  in  the  Second  Temptation,  when  He  refused 
to  exercise  His  supernatural  power  except  in  a  way  befitting 
its  aim  and  motive.  In  the  credential,  there  must  be  more  than 
a  display  of  supernatural  power;  there  must  be  convincing  char¬ 
acter  in  the  wonder  wrought.  This  leads  us  to  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  inner  character  of  Christ’s  miracles.  What  did  they 
portend  as  “signs”? 

The  Miracles  of  Jesus  were  at  once  witnesses  to  the  reality 
of  His  Kingship,  and  to  the  nature  of  His  Kingdom,  or  sov¬ 
ereignty.  They  were  as  suggestive  and  as  educational  as  His 
parables:  in  fact,  they  were  parables  in  action.  They  revealed 
the  innermost  character  of  God — Love — and  they  disclosed  the 
tenor  of  His  sovereignty  with  regard  to  both  physical  and 
spiritual  maladies.  Dr.  Drummond  says  in  his  book,  “Apostolic 
Teaching  and  Christ’s  Teaching,”  p.  116,  “The  diseases  cured 
were  recognized  types  of  spiritual  evil.  Deafness  and  blind¬ 
ness  were  the  figures  of  fatal  indifference  to  spiritual  truth. 

1  Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum  are  condemned  for  their 
infidelity  in  the  face  of  His  mighty  works.  “Woe  unto  thee, 
Chorazin,  woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida,  for  if  the  mighty  works,  which 
were  done  in  you,  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would 
have  repented  long  ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  .  .  .  And  thou 
Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto  heaven,  shall  be  brought  down 
to  hell :  for  if  the  mighty  works,  which  have  been  done  in  thee,  had 
been  done  in  Sodom,  it  would  have  remained  until  this  day”  (St 
Mt.  11:21,  23;  cf.  St.  Jn.  11:15;  6:26;  20:31). 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural 


2 1 1 


Leprosy  was  the  type  of  sin.  Demoniac  possession  pointed  to 
the  imperious  author  of  all  human  ill.  And  death  was  the 
tragic  issue.  All  these  are  routed  by  Jesus.  The  good  news 
that  it  can  be  done  is  made  known  even  to  the  poorest.  They 
too  may  share  the  blessings  as  freely  as  nobleman’s  child,  or 
centurion’s  servant,  or  daughter  of  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue. 
Rescue,  rescue  of  men  from  ills  in  every  form,  its  proclamation 
by  word  and  act,  which  alike  inspire  a  great  confidence  that  no 
human  ill  can  ultimately  resist  Him — that  is  Christ’s  mission.” 
And  again,  on  page  352,  he  says:  “Christ’s  object  in  performing 
miracles  was  not  simply  to  arrest  attention  or  to  alleviate  clamant 
need,  but  by  showing  the  mighty  forces  within  the  reach  of 
faith,  to  develop  in  others  that  unhesitating  faith  in  God  which 
He  himself  possessed  in  His  heavenly  Father.”  The  miracles  of 
Jesus  also  show  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  means  the  redemp¬ 
tion  of  the  human  body,  as  well  as  the  human  soul.  They  reveal 
its  essential  dignity,  and  the  abnormality  of  disease.  They  pro¬ 
test  against  undervaluation  of  the  body,  and  mark  health  and 
strength — physical  well-being — as  the  intent  of  God.  They  are 
the  precursors,  indeed,  of  hospitals,  and  of  every  legitimate 
development  in  medical  science.  It  is  this  didactic  and  spiritual 
element  which  lifts  the  Gospel  miracles  above  the  miracles  of  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels  and  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  stamps 
them  with  a  distinct  individuality.1 

1  The  Miracles,  however,  in  spite  of  their  character  as  “wonders” 
and  “signs,”  were  not  able,  and  never  will  be  able,  in  themselves 
alone  to  induce  faith  in  Jesus.  Like  the  Parables,  they  would 
prove  efficacious  only  in  the  case  of  the  spiritually  minded.  Of 
this,  Jesus  was  fully  aware.  In  the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus, 
He  represents  Abraham  as  saying  to  the  agonizing  Dives,  who 
pleads  that  a  messenger  be  sent  to  warn  his  brethren  of  their 
impending  fate :  “If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither 
will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead”  (St.  Lu.  16: 
31).  Even  a  miracle  of  the  signal  character  of  one  rising  from  the 
dead  would  prove  utterly  inadequate  with  those  whose  mental  and 
moral  sense  did  not  respond  to  the  spiritual  truth  revealed  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  That  Jesus  was  amply  justified  in  this 
opinion,  the  infidelity  of  thousands  in  His  own  day,  and  especially 
since  the  resurrection  attests  (Cf.  St.  Jn.  12:27).  Where,  how¬ 
ever,  spiritual  receptivity  existed  in  ever  so  slight  degree,  miracles 
would  prove  very  helpful  as  credentials,  and  as  the  stepping  stone 
to  larger  faith.  This  effect  is  evident  in  the  following  words:  “But 
the  men  marveled,  saying,  What  manner  of  man  is  this,  that  even 


2  12 


Jesus’  Idea 


Jesus,  however,  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
center,  no  less  than  the  source,  of  supernatural  phenomena. 
At  the  very  outset  of  His  ministry  we  read:  “And  straightway 
coming  up  out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and 
the  Spirit,  like  a  dove,  descending  upon  him:  and  there  came 
a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased”  (St.  Mk.  i  :io,  n,  cf.  St.  Mt.  3: 
16,  17,  St.  Lu.  3:21,  22).  The  meaning  of  this  incident  of 
Jesus’  Baptism  is  apparent.  Whether  we  conceive  of  it  as  an 
objective  reality — a  visible  symbol  of  a  dove  and  an  audible 
voice — or  only  as  a  subjective  vision,  Jesus’  consecration  of 
Himself  in  Baptism  to  the  service  of  the  approaching  Kingdom 
is  met  by  Heaven’s  inauguration  of  Him  as  the  Kingdom’s 
King  and  Founder.  Destined  from  birth  for  this  regal  honor, 

the  winds  and  the  sea  obey  him?”  (St.  Mt.  8:27).  After  the 
description  of  the  raising  from  the  dead  of  the  widow’s  son  at 
Nain,  we  read :  “And  there  came  a  fear  on  all :  and  they  glorified 
God,  saying,  That  a  great  prophet  is  risen  up  among  us ;  and  that 
God  hath  visited  his  people”  (St.  Lu.  7:16).  “This  beginning  of 
miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  forth  his 
glory;  and  his  disciples  believed  on  him”  (St.  Jn.  2:11,  cf.  6:14; 
2:2  3). 

We  must  also  note  that  the  faith  in  Jesus  which  is  due  to 
miracles  quickening  a  certain  spiritual  receptivity  is  not  the  highest 
type  of  faith.  That  which  is  born  solely  of  a  response  to  spiritual 
truth  is  infinitely  nobler.  Jesus  Himself  said:  “Believe  me  that 
I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me ;  or  else  believe  me  for 
the  very  work’s  sake”  (St.  Jn.  14:11).  “Except  ye  see  signs  and 
wonders,  ye  will  not  believe”  (4:48).  Again  after  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  He  said  to  the  doubting  Thomas :  “Thomas,  because  thou 
hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen,  and  yet  have  believed ”  (20:29).  Because  of  this  fact,  Jesus 
strove  to  work  miracles  only  where  an  incipient  faith  was  present, 
declining  to  oblige  an  enquiring  Herod  (St.  Lu.  23:8),  and  rebuking 
the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  sought  from  Him  a  sign:  “An  evil 
and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign ;  and  there  shall  no 
sign  be  given  to  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas,”  i.  e.,  the 
preaching  of  moral  truth  (St.  Mt.  12:38-41).  The  faith,  indeed, 
aroused  in  this  way  was  of  so  poor  a  type,  and  so  likely  to  lend 
itself  to  unspiritual  conceptions  (the  support  of  the  current  Mes¬ 
sianic  expectations)  that  Jesus  often  sought  to  suppress  the  report 
about  the  miracles  which  He  performed.  “Tell  no  man”;  “See  that 
no  man  know  it,”  were  frequent  expressions  on  His  lips  (St.  Mt. 
8:4;  9:30;  St.  Mk.  7:36).  The  Rev.  George  A.  Gordon’s  book, 
“Religion  and  Miracle,”  furnishes  a  valuable  and  fascinating  study 
of  miracles  as  comparatively  valueless  as  an  aid  to  faith. 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural 


213 


and  fitted  for  it  by  a  peculiar  spiritual  relationship  to  the 
Father,  the  time  had  come  for  the  conscious  recognition  and  as¬ 
sumption  of  the  royal  duty.  Hence  we  have  the  supernatural 
phenomena  which  marks  Him  henceforth  as  the  Messiah — 
the  Son  of  God — and  reveals  Him  in  this  light  to  the  fore¬ 
runner,  John  the  Baptist.  “And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I 
saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode 
upon  him.  And  I  knew  him  not:  but  he  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou 
shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost”  (St.  Jn.  1: 
32,  33).  The  congruity  of  the  incident,  and  the  purpose  which 
it  served,  convince  one  of  its  truthfulness. 

But  passing  on,  we  find  Jesus,  late  in  His  ministry,  the 
center  of  a  more  remarkable  supernatural  phenomenon.  Some 
six  or  eight  days  after  St.  Peter’s  confession  at  Caesarea  Philippi 
and  Jesus’  prediction  of  His  death  at  the  hands  of  the  Jewish 
leaders,  we  have  the  incident  of  the  Transfiguration.1  The 
significance  of  this  event  is  very  great.  The  disciples  had  been 
utterly  unable  to  appreciate  Jesus’  allusion  to  His  death.  Heaven, 

1  “And  it  came  to  pass  ...  he  (Jesus)  took  Peter  and  John  and 
James,  and  went  up  into  a  mountain  to  pray.  And  as  he  prayed, 
the  fashion  of  his  countenance  was  altered,  and  his  raiment  was 
white  and  glistering.  And,  behold,  there  talked  with  him  two  men, 
which  were  Moses  and  Elias :  Who  appeared  in  glory,  and  spake 
of  his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish  at  Jerusalem.  But  Peter 
and  they  that  were  with  him  were  heavy  with  sleep ;  and  when 
they  were  awake,  they  saw  his  glory,  and  the  two  men  that  stood 
with  him.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  departed  from  him,  Peter 
said  unto  Jesus,  Master,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here,  and  let  us 
make  three  tabernacles;  one  for  thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one 
for  Elias:  not  knowing  what  he  said.  While  he  thus  spake,  there 
came  a  cloud,  and  overshadowed  them :  and  they  feared  as  they 
entered  into  the  cloud.  And  there  came  a  voice  out  of  the  cloud, 
saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son :  hear  him.  And  when  the  voice 
was  past,  Jesus  was  found  alone.  And  they  kept  it  close,  and  told 
no  man  in  those  days  any  of  these  things  which  they  had  seen. 
(St.  Lu.  9:28-36.)  The  parallel  accounts  are  St.  Mt.  17:1-8  and 
St.  Mk.  9:2-8.  These  accounts  are  quite  similar:  St.  Matthew  says, 
however,  that  when  the  disciples  heard  a  voice,  they  fell  on  their 
faces,  while  “Jesus  came  and  touched  them,  and  said,  Arise  and 
be  not  afraid.”  St.  Luke  is  more  independent.  He  alone  tells  us 
about  Jesus  praying,  the  subject  of  Moses  and  Elijah’s  conversation, 
and  the  sleepiness  of  the  disciples. 


214 


Jesus’  Idea 


indeed,  had  opened  their  eyes  to  the  fact  of  His  Messiahship, 
but  they  did  not  appreciate  the  necessity  for  the  Messiah’s 
death.  Jesus,  in  fact,  stood  absolutely  alone.  The  disciples’ 
failure  to  understand  made  His  isolation  complete.  The 
situation  was  embarrassing  alike  to  Him  and  to  them.  In  this 
time  of  stress,  He  took  the  three  disciples  of  deepest  insight — 
Peter,  James  and  John — and  sought  the  lonely  mountain  side. 
There  Heaven  responded  to  their  needs.  The  Transfiguration, 
indeed,  was  of  vast  moment  to  both  Master  and  disciples.  To 
the  latter,  it  revealed  a  glimpse  of  the  celestial  glory  of  their 
Lord,  and  prepared  them  for  the  truth  which  had  been  so 
sorely  puzzling  them;  namely,  that  the  Messiah’s  death  was  in 
consonance  with  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  Moses  and  Elijah, 
the  representatives  of  these,  are  seen  to  lead  to  Christ.  The 
voice  too — “This  is  my  beloved  Son :  hear  ye  him” — would 
also  forever  settle  any  doubt  as  to  his  authority,  placing  it 
above  even  that  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  To  Jesus 
Himself,  the  Transfiguration  meant  the  removal  of  the  sense 
of  isolation.  If  men  did  not  understand  the  necessity  for 
His  death,  Heaven,  at  least,  did.  The  Apostles  of  the  Old 
Testament — Moses  and  Elijah — understood,  if  the  Apostles 
of  the  New  Testament  did  not.  The  voice,  too,  signified  His 
Father’s  absolute  ratification  of  His  course  (Cf.  St.  Mk.  i: 
ii  ;  St.  Mk.  3:17;  St.  Lu.  3:22). 

Thus,  whether  we  regard  this  incident  as  an  objective 
fact,  or  as  real  only  in  the  sense  of  being  a  subjective  vision, 
we  can  appreciate  the  fitness  inherent  in  both  the  form  and 
the  content  of  the  phenomenon.  The  thoughtful  reader  will 
also  note  how  closely  the  supernatural  phenomena  of  which 
Jesus  is  the  center  fulfil  the  condition  which  characterized 
the  miraculous  phenomena  of  which  He  was  the  source.  Each 
incident  is  not  merely  a  wonder  but  a  “sign”;  each  is  an  event 
with  a  purpose;  each  bears  a  distinct  relation  to  the  Kingdom 
of  God.  How  great  a  crisis,  indeed,  in  the  development  of  the 
Kingdom,  the  Transfiguration  itself  relieved,  it  is  impossible 
to  say. 

Yet  other  phenomena  await  us.  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
is  par  excellence  the  prime  supernatural  credential  of  Christian¬ 
ity.  The  fact  of  the  Resurrection  itself  is  indisputable.  The 
artless,  straightforward  character  of  the  account,  indeed,  goes 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  215 


far  toward  substantiating  its  truthfulness.  Despite  Jesus’  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  fact  on  several  occasions  (St.  Mt.  16:21 ;  17:22,  23; 
St.  Mk.  8:31;  9:31,  32;  St.  Lu.  9:22),  the  Apostles  were 
utterly  unprepared  for  so  stupendous  an  event.  They  were  not 
awaiting  the  Resurrection,  and  they  would  not  believe  its 
earliest  report  (St.  Mt.  28:17;  St.  Mk.  16:1,  11,  13,  14; 
St.  Jn.  20:25).  “Their  words  seemed  to  them  as  idle  tales, 
and  they  believed  them  not”  (St.  Lu.  24:11,  cf.  36:43). 
Jesus  also  “upbraided  them  wTith  their  unbelief  and  hardness 
of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  which  had  seen  him 
after  he  was  risen”  (St.  Mk.  i6:i4).1 

This  stupendous  fact,  however,  was  the  great  theme  of  the 
Apostolic  preaching,  and  it  must  necessarily  have  been  so. 
Jesus  had  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  His  claim,  however, 
had  been  rejected.  But  now  the  Resurrection  had  proved  His 
claim.  That  He  had  actually  risen  from  the  dead,  the  Apostles 
fully  believed.  Nine  appearances,  in  fact,  of  the  risen  Christ, 
during  the  space  of  forty  days,  are  recorded.2  Attempts  have 

1  The  account  of  the  Resurrection  as  given  by  St.  Mark  is  as 

follows :  “And  when  the  Sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  had  bought  sweet  spices, 

that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.  And  very  early  in  the 

morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  came  unto  the  sepulcher 
at  the  rising  of  the  sun.  And  they  said  among  themselves,  Who 
shall  roll  us  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulcher?  And 
when  they  looked,  they  saw  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away :  for  it 

was  very  great.  And  entering  into  the  sepulcher,  they  saw  a 

young  man  sitting  on  the  right  side,  clothed  in  a  long  white  gar¬ 
ment;  and  they  were  affrighted.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Be  not 
affrighted:  Ye  seek  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  was  crucified:  he  is 
risen;  he  is  not  here:  behold  the  place  where  they  laid  him.  But 
go  your  way,  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter  that  he  goeth  before  you 
into  Galilee ;  there  shall  ye  see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you.  And  they 
went  out  quickly,  and  fled  from  the  sepulcher,  for  they  trembled 
and  were  amazed :  neither  said  they  anything  to  any  man ;  for 
they  were  afraid”  (16:1-9). 

2  The  appearance  to  the  women  of  Galilee  (St.  Mt.  28:9,  10)  ;  to 
the  Magdalene  (St.  Jn.  20:14-18)  ;  to  the  two  disciples  on  the  road 
to  Emmaus  (St.  Lu.  24:13-35  cf. ;  St.  Mk.  16:12,  13)  ;  to  Peter  (St. 
Lu.  24:33,  34)  ;  to  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem,  Thomas  being  absent 
(St.  Mk.  16:14;  St.  Lu.  24:36-43;  St.  Jn.  20:19-25)  ;  to  the  disciples, 
Thomas  being  present  (St.  Jn.  20:26-29)  ;  to  the  seven  disciples 
by  the  sea  of  Galilee  (St.  Jn.  21  :i-24)  ;  to  the  eleven  (and  probably 
others,  cf.  I.  Cor.  15:6)  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee  (St.  Mt.  28:16-20)  ; 
the  last  appearance  (St.  Lu.  24:44-49,  50-53). 


21  6 


Jesus’  Idea 


been  made,  however,  along  several  lines  to  discredit,  the  fact  of 
the  Resurrection.  We  are  told,  for  instance,  that  Jesus  did  not 
really  die,  but  simply  swooned,  and  was  restored  to  consciousness 
by  the  damp  tomb;  or  that  the  whole  account  is  legendary;  or 
that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  was  due  to  “mental  hallu¬ 
cinations.”  These  hypotheses,  however,  are  unconvincing.  A 
resuscitated  man  is  utterly  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
valor  and  the  vigor  of  the  early  Church.  Legends  again  require 
much  time  for  development ;  yet  we  find  the  story  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection  generally  accepted  at  an  early  date,  and  recorded  in 
Gospels  written  only  some  forty  years  after  the  event.  Further, 
the  fact  is  the  presupposition  of  all  of  the  Apostolic  Letters. 
Four  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistles — Romans,  Galatians,  and  I  and  II 
Corinthians — even  the  most  stringent  criticism  admits  to  be 
genuine.  These  were  written  before  A.  D.  60,  that  is,  about 
twenty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  they  bear  un¬ 
equivocal  testimony  to  His  Resurrection  (Rom.  14:9;  I  Cor. 
15:3-7;  Gal.  1:1).  As  for  the  theory  of  “mental  hallucina¬ 
tions,”  we  would  say  that  if  these  continued  for  some  six 
weeks,  and  had  as  their  subjects  so  many  different  people  on 
different  occasions — as  many  as  five  hundred  at  one  time — this 
in  itself  would  be  convincing  evidence  of  the  hand  of  God, 
and  the  guarantee  of  the  reality  of  the  vision;  not  of  its 
illusory  character. 

The  external  evidence  for  the  Resurrection,  however,  is 
strongly  supplemented  by  the  inner  probability  of  that  event. 
The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not  merely  the  resurrection  of  a 
man,  it  was  the  resuscitation  of  a  Cause.  The  Kingdom  of  God 
zuas  at  stake;  with  the  Crucifixion,  its  doom  seemed  to  have 
been  sealed,  its  future  appeared  hopeless,  its  King  discredited. 
The  Resurrection,  however,  changed  the  aspect  of  the  situation 
entirely.  It  was,  indeed,  a  mighty  “sign,”  the  sign  that  the 
King  was  not  discredited,  but  accredited;  that  the  cause  of 
the  Kingdom  was  not  hopeless,  but  triumphant.  It  revealed 
Jesus  at  once  as  the  Lord  of  both  Life  and  Death,  placed  the 
imprimatur  of  God  Himself  upon  all  His  claims,  His  teaching, 
and  His  work,  and  showed  that  those  who  trusted  Him,  whether 
in  life  or  in  death,  would  never  be  confounded.  Had  Jesus 
remained  silent  in  the  tomb  in  spite  of  His  august  Personal¬ 
ity,  His  sublime  Teaching,  and  His  mighty  Works,  humanity’s 


» 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  217 

trust  in  morality  and  truth  must  have  been  shaken  to  the 
foundation,  and  humanity’s  confusion  in  the  presence  of  death 
must  have  been  infinitely  intensified.  The  fabric  of  faith  would 
have  tottered  to  its  fall.  Well,  indeed,  might  St.  Peter  say: 
“Whom  God  hath  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death: 
because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be  holden  of  it T 
(Acts.  2:24.)  In  the  light  of  the  Resurrection,  too,  the 
disciples  could  understand  many  things  about  the  Kingdom 
which  had  been  obscure  before.  Jesus,  in  fact,  standing  in 
the  light  shed  by  this  event,  explained  many  matters  to  their 
keen  satisfaction  (St.  Lu.  24:25-32;  44-47;  Acts.  1:3). 
Taking,  therefore,  both  the  a  priori  and  the  a  posteriori  evi¬ 
dence,  we  may  accept  the  following  statement  without  hesi¬ 
tation  :  “The  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  best  critics  is 
that  no  past  event  stands  on  firmer  historical  grounds  than  that 
Jesus  being  dead  rose  again,  and  that  His  appearance  to  the 
disciples  begot  their  faith  anew,  and  filled  them  with  en¬ 
thusiasm  for  their  future  work.” 

The  next  supernatural  event  to  demand  attention  is  the 
Ascension.1  The  Kingdom,  indeed,  had  now  been  inaugurated, 
the  King  had  been  accredited,  and  nothing  remained  but  the 
Kingdom’s  development  and  extension.  Could  the  interests  of 
the  Kingdom  be  better  served  by  the  King  remaining  on  the 
earth,  or  by  His  withdrawal  to  become  a  spiritual  presence — 
absent  in  body,  yet  present  in  spirit?  The  Ascension  is  the 
answer.  The  Master’s  arms  were  then  outstretched  to  bless: 
the  very  attitude  was  significant  of  the  reality.  Despite  the  clear 
note  of  finality — the  Ascension  being  the  termination  of  the 
earthly  appearances — the  departure  was  a  blessing,  and  it  was 
so  understood  by  the  disciples:  “They  worshiped  him,  and  re¬ 
turned  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy:  and  were  continually  in  the 
temple,  blessing  God.”  This  departure,  indeed,  meant  the 
exaltation  of  their  Lord,  and  it  transformed  the  personal  friend 
of  the  few  into  the  spiritual  Savior  of  the  many.  Heaven, 
too,  would  henceforth  be  their  constant  support  in  the  extension 

1  This  is  described  by  St.  Luke  as  follows :  “And  he  led  them 
out  as  far  as  Bethany,  and  he  lifted  up  his  hands,  and  blessed 
them.  And  it  came  to  pass,  while  he  blessed  them,  he  was  parted 
from  them,  and  carried  up  into  heaven.  And  they  worshiped  him, 
and  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great  joy:  And  were  continually  in 
the  temple,  praising  and  blessing  God.”  (St.  Lu.  24:50-53.) 


Jesus’  Idea 


218 

of  the  Kingdom,  and  a  restricted  sphere  of  activity  had  given 
place  to  a  universal  sphere.  Besides,  all  power  was  now  in 
the  hands  of  their  Lord:  what  need  they  fear  then? 

Indeed,  shortly  before  the  Ascension,  Jesus  had  said  to  the 
disciples:  “Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
you:  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high”  (St.  Lu.  24:49).  In  Acts,  1:8, 
Jesus  is  represented  as  saying:  “But  ye  shall  receive  power, 
after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you :  and  ye  shall  be 
witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and 
in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth.”  These 
remarks  were  inevitably  associated  by  the  disciples  with  the 
sayings  of  their  Master  at  the  Last  Supper  about  the  Holy 
Spirit.1  In  speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Jesus  was  not  intro¬ 
ducing  the  disciples  to  a  new  subject.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  He 
was  building  upon  a  Jewish  foundation.  Their  Scriptures  had 
made  them  well  acquainted  with  the  idea  of  “the  Spirit,”  “the 
Spirit  of  God,”  and  “a  Holy  Spirit.”  2  Hence  Jesus  was  as- 

1  “I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter, 
that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever;  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth;  whom 
the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth 
him :  but  ye  know  him ;  for  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in 
you.”  (St.  Jn.  14:16,  1 7.)  “But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever 
I  have  said  unto  you/’  (Vs.  26,  cf.  16:13-15.)  “But  when  the 
Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall 
testify  of  me :  and  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have  been 
with  me  from  the  beginning.”  (St.  Jn.  15:26,  27.)  The  Holy 
Spirit,  however,  was  also  to  bear  an  intimate  relationship  to  the 
World  as  well  as  to  the  disciples.  “Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the 
truth;  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away:  for  if  I  go  not 
away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you;  but  if  I  depart,  I 
will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the 
world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment:  Of  sin,  be¬ 
cause  they  believe  not  on  me;  Of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to 
my  Father,  and  ye  see  me  no  more;  Of  judgment,  because  the 
prince  of  this  world  is  judged.”  (St.  Jn.  16:7-11.) 

2  “The  Holy  Spirit,”  however,  is  not  an  Old  Testament  expression. 
“His”  or  “Thy”  Holy  Spirit  is  found  only  in  Isa.  63:10,  11,  and 
Psalm  51  :ii.  Yet  at  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  we  have  the  state¬ 
ment  :  “The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.” 
(Gen.  1:2.)  Here  the  Spirit  of  God  is  an  agent  in  Creation  itself. 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  219 


sured  of  immediate  attention,  when  He  mentioned  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Grieving  over  their  Lord’s  departure,  the  Apostles  were 
promised  another  Comforter.  Jesus  had  been  their  strengthener 
or  Comforter,  but  now  another  Strengthener  would  come,  who 
would  abide  with  them  forever.  The  Greek  word  which  is 
translated  “Comforter”  is  parakletos ,  which  means  primarily  an 
advocate — “one  who  pleads  another’s  cause  before  a  judge,”  but 
it  was  also  used  in  the  larger  sense  of  a  helper,  or  an  assistant.1 
Losing  their  Lord,  and  entrusted  with  the  cause  of  Heaven,  the 
Apostles’  need  of  assistance  and  of  comfort  in  the  face  of  a  hos¬ 
tile  world  is  apparent.  Jesus  keenly  appreciated  the  situation, 

Passing  to  Job,  33:4;  34:14,  and  Psalm  104:30,  we  find  the  Spirit 
as  the  conservator  of  life.  The  Spirit  of  God,  too,  made  man  a 
living  soul  (Gen.  2:7;  Job.  32:8),  conferring  upon  him  his  mental 
and  moral  faculties  in  general,  and  also  specific  powers  of  most 
diversified  character:  the  artizan’s  skill  (Ex.  36:1),  military  ability 
(Deut.  34:9),  and  conspicuous  wisdom  (I  Ki.  22:24).  (Cf.  Gen. 
41  :38;  Num.  27  :i8 ;  11 : 1 7 ;  24:2;  Ex.  28:3  ;  31  :3-6.)  The  inspiration 
of  the  prophets  also  was  due  preeminently  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Ezekiel  11:5  is  an  illustration:  “And  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  fell 
upon  me,  and  said  unto  me,  Speak;  Thus  saith  the  Lord.”  (Cf. 
Ez.  2:2;  Dan.  4:8,  9;  5:11;  Num.  11:17,  25>  29;  2  Sam.  28:2;  I 
Ki.  22:24.)  Again,  the  Messianic  King  would  possess  the  fulness 
of  the  Spirit,  as  we  have  seen;  the  Spirit  conferring  the  intellectual 
gifts  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  practical  gifts  of  counsel 
and  might,  the  religious  gifts  of  knowledge  and  fear  of  the  Lord. 
(Isa.  11  :i-io,  c.  61  ff.)  The  Spirit  was  also  regarded  as  the 
author  of  man’s  moral  and  spiritual  life.  It  was  called  a  “holy” 
Spirit  as  the  power-producing  holiness.  (Ps.  51  :n  ;  Isa.  63  :io,  11,  cf. 
Neh.  9:20;  Ez.  36:26;  Zech.  12:10.)  In  this  aspect  of  its  presence 
and  power,  the  Spirit,  as  we  have  found,  was  to  be  more  marked 
in  the  Messianic  era.  (Jer.  31;  Ez.  36:26  ff . ;  Joel  2:28.) 

According  to  the  late  Professor  Davidson,  “the  Spirit  of  God” 
in  the  Old  Testament  was  simply  “God  exerting  power.”  “Person¬ 
ality,”  in  an  absolute  sense,  was  not  ascribed  to  the  spirit ;  whatever 
of  personal  qualities  and  of  personal  acts  were  ascribed  to  it,  were 
due  to  its  identification  with  “God  exerting  Power.”  (See  Art. 
“Holy  Spirit,”  by  Swete,  in  Hasting’s  Bible  Dictionary,  vol.  2.) 
While  the  references  to  the  “Spirit”  are  fewer  in  the  Apocryphal 
Old  Testament  Literature  than  in  the  Canonical  Testament,  and 
reveal  generally  a  lower  conception — due  perhaps  to  the  ever- 
developing  angelology  of  the  period,  many  of  the  functions  formerly 
attributed  to  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  being  attributed  to  angels — this 
did  not  cause  the  popular  mind  to  lose  sight  entirely  of  the  Spirit’s 
activity  and  mission. 

1  In  verses  21  and  23,  this  Assistant  is  identified  alike  with  God 
and  with  Christ. 


220 


Jesus’  Idea 


and  further,  He  specified  in  what  direction  their  need  lay,  and 
what  form  their  assistance  would  take. 

“The  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance, 
whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you”  (St.  Jn.  14:26).  “How- 
beit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into 
all  truth:  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever 
he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak;  and  he  will  show  you 
things  to  come.  He  shall  glorify  me:  for  he  shall  receive  of 
mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you.  All  things  that  the  Father 
hath  are  mine :  therefore  said  I,  that  he  shall  take  of  mine,  and 
shall  show  it  unto  you”  (St.  Jn.  16,  13-15).  Jesus,  indeed, 
had  been  the  Apostles’  teacher;  but  this  Spirit  will  now  take 
His  place.  Even  the  many  things  which  Jesus  had  to  say 
to  the  disciples,  but  which  they  could  not  then  bear  (vs.  12) 
would  be  declared  by  this  Spirit  of  Truth,  who  would  in  this 
way  glorify  Jesus.  We  must  not  think,  however,  of  the  truth 
which  would  be  disclosed  as  intellectual  truth  alone.  The 
Greek,  aletheia,  here  includes  “a  mode  of  life  in  harmony  with 
divine  truth.”  Theory  and  practise  go  hand  in  hand.  Both 
intellectual  truth  and  ethical  practise,  indeed,  are  the  Spirit’s 
mission.  Further,  because  of  the  unique  relationship  which 
the  disciples  bore  to  Jesus  the  Spirit  would  also  bring  to  their 
remembrance  whatsoever  He  had  said  to  them.  In  view  of 
this,  Alford  may  well  say:  “It  is  in  the  fulfilment  of  this 
promise  to  the  Apostles  that  their  sufficiency  as  witnesses  of 
all  that  the  Lord  did  and  taught,  and  consequently  the  au¬ 
thenticity  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  grounded.” 

We  make  a  sad  mistake,  however,  if  we  interpret  the  Spirit’s 
guidance  into  truth  only  in  this  sense,  and  restrict  it  to  the 
Apostles.  This  promise,  like  that  of  the  peace  of  God  (vs.  27), 
the  abiding  presence  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  (23),  and  the 
revelation  of  the  Christ  (21),  is  applicable,  individually  and 
universally,  to  all  Christians.  It  guarantees  to  the  brother¬ 
hood  of  Christ  a  perpetual  progress  into  truth,  born  of  a  con¬ 
stantly  enriched  human  experience,  both  mental  and  spiritual. 
Truth,  indeed,  does  not  depend  upon  a  priesthood,  a  tradition, 
or  an  ecclesiastical  creed,  but  upon  honest  hearts  and  the 
Spirit’s  guidance.  Christ  was  an  evolutionist.  His  mind 
was  of  the  prophetic  order.  Humanity,  indeed,  from  a  re- 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  221 

ligious,  a  political,  a  social,  or  an  intellectual  standpoint  may 
always  be  divided  into  two  classes — priests  and  prophets^ 
The  one  worships  at  the  shrine  of  the  past;  the  other  always 
hails  the  dawning  future.  To  the  priestly  mind,  every  in¬ 
novation  is  revolutionary:  it  “worships  the  dead  corpse  of  old 
King  Custom,  where  it  doth  lie  in  state  within  the  Church”; 
to  the  prophetic  mind,  many  innovations  are  evolutionary:  it 
realizes  that  “God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways  lest  one  good 
custom  should  corrupt  the  world.”  For  Jesus,  at  least,  the 
Golden  Age  of  Truth  was  not  in  the  past,  but  in  the  future. 
The  Spirit  would  guide  into  all  Truth.  The  Comforter  was 
also  to  assist  the  disciples  in  bearing  testimony  to  Christ.  “But 
when  the  Comforter  is  come — he  shall  testify  of  me:  And  ye 
also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the 
beginning”  (St.  Jn.  15:26,  27).  The  evidence  for  the  King¬ 
dom  was  thus  to  emanate  from  both  an  external  and  an  internal 
source — the  Apostles  and  the  Spirit.  The  one  was  to  supple¬ 
ment  the  other.  This,  indeed,  has  ever  been  the  Kingdom’s 
strength — the  witness  borne  by  the  individual  Christian  in 
word  and  in  deed,  and  that  borne  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth  acting 
within  the  man,  pleading  and  convincing  (Cf.  St.  Mt.  10: 
igff;  St.  Mk.  13:11;  St.  Lu.  11:13;  12:11). 

The  relation  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth  to  the  World,  however, 
Jesus  revealed  more  specifically.  “When  he  is  come,  he  will 
reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment: 
Of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me;  Of  righteousness,  be¬ 
cause  I  go  to  the  Father,  and  ye  see  me  no  more;  Of  judgment, 
because  the  prince  of  this  world  is  judged  (St.  Jn.  16,  8-n). 
The  word  here  translated  “reprove”  means  rather  to  convict, 
and,  as  Thayer  tells  us,  “generally  with  a  suggestion  of  the 
shame  of  the  person  convicted.”  The  Spirit  of  God,  then, 
was  to  convict  the  world,  i.  e.,  the  human  race  estranged 
from  God,  in  three  particulars.  It  was  to  be  compelled  to  take 
account  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment.  Of  sin,  in 
that  it  had  missed  its  aim  because  it  did  not  believe  in  Jesus, 
did  not  accept  Him  as  the  Lord  of  its  Life  and  its  Opinion. 
Faith,  indeed,  is  an  active  principle,  not  a  passive  virtue;  be¬ 
lief  in  Jesus  is  not  intellectual  assent,  but  ethical  consent; 
faith  is  service.  The  world’s  infidelity,  let  us  remember,  is 
not  shown  in  the  denial  of  facts  about  Jesus,  but  in  a  refusal 


222 


Jesus’  Idea  : 


to  be  led  by  Him.  Of  righteousness ,  in  that  the  world  would 
learn  what  was  the  condition  which  made  a  man  acceptable  to 
God.  In  contradistinction  to  Pharisaic  righteousness — cere¬ 
monial  religion — and  scribal  righteousness — intellectual  religion 
— the  Holy  Spirit  would  convince  of  true  righteousness — spirit¬ 
ual  religion.  The  conviction  of  sin  in  itself  would  inevitably 
reveal  this  righteousness.  In  the  hideousness  of  the  one  would 
be  seen  the  beauty  of  the  other.  The  positive  would  appear 
from  the  negative.  And  this  would  happen  because  Jesus 
was  going  to  the  Father,  and  the  world  would  see  Him  no  more. 
This  means  that  in  the  light  of  His  departure,  the  world  would 
have  clearer  vision.  Then  peasant  birth,  humble  environment, 
Jewish  descent,  obscurity,  ignominious  death — the  accidents  of 
H  is  life — would  be  lost  sight  of  in  appreciation  of  His  char¬ 
acter,  His  teaching,  His  aim,  and  His  self-sacrificing  service — 
the  realities  of  His  life.  Then  the  world  would  have  the  true 
perspective;  until  then,  it  would  see  through  a  glass  darkly. 
Men,  indeed,  are  never  appreciated  at  their  true  value,  while 
they  are  alive.  True  biography  must  be  written  in  the  perspec¬ 
tive  of  time. 

The  world  would  also  be  convicted  of  judgment ,  “because 
the  prince  of  this  world  was  judged.”  In  the  Crucifixion  of 
Jesus,  the  world  seemed  to  have  passed  judgment  upon  Him. 
In  reality  this  event  had  passed  judgment  upon  the  world. 
The  prince  or  ruler  of  the  world  was  judged,  in  that  a  new 
standard  of  value  was  given  to  man;  the  former  glory  of  the 
world,  reveling  in  the  blood  of  Jesus,  was  seen  to  be  its 
shame.  A  great  crisis,  indeed,  in  human  affairs  had  come. 
Henceforth  men  must  judge  all  things  in  accordance  with  a  new 
principle:  the  very  principle,  in  fact,  which  they  had  crucified. 
The  world  was  even  then  standing  in  the  shadow  of  an 
impending  judgment.  Spiritual  insight,  indeed,  had  already  re¬ 
vealed  to  Jesus  the  Crown  supplanting  the  Cross. 

One  can  see  at  once  in  view  of  these  declarations  of  Our 
Lord,  how  intimately  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  related 
to  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Spirit  would  be 
Heaven’s  agency  in  the  extension  of  the  Kingdom;  Heaven’s 
supplement  of  man’s  endeavor,  vitalizing  the  seed  of  truth  sown 
by  man  in  the  congenial  soil  of  human  hearts.  With  the  Spirit’s 
advent,  a  new  era  would  dawn  for  the  Kingdom;  its  ma- 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  223 


chinery  for  extension  would  be  complete.  Hence  Jesus,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  of  His  departure,  urged  His  Apostles  to  be 
joyous.1 

1<lYe  have  heard  how  I  said  unto  you,  I  go  away,  and  come  again 
unto  you.  If  ye  loved  me  ye  would  rejoice,  because  I  said  I  go 
unto  the  Father:  for  my  Father  is  greater  than  I.  (St.  Jn.  14:28.) 
Because  I  have  said  these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath  filled  your 
heart.  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth;  It  is  expedient  for  you 
that  I  go  away:  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not 
come  unto  you;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.”  (St.  Jn. 

1 6:6,  7.)  Symbolic,  too,  of  Jesus’  promise  was  His  action  on  the 
night  after  the  Resurrection,  when  He  appeared  to  the  Apostles, 
and  said :  “Peace  be  unto  you :  as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I  you.  And  when  He  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost :  Whose  soever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained.”  (St.  Jn.  20:21-23.) 

The  fulfilment  of  the  Master’s  promise  is  recorded  in  Acts  2, 
if  we  accept  the  narrative  as  historical.  On  the  Day  of  Pentecost, 
when  thousands  of  Jews  had  assembled  in  Jerusalem  from  foreign 
parts  to  observe  the  feast,  “there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of 
a  rushing  mighty  wind,  filling  all  the  house  where  the  Apostles 
were,  and  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of 
fire,  which  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  utterance.”  The  sound  of  the  rushing  wind  probably 
recalled  at  once  Jesus’  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  in  which  He 
had  revealed  the  mysterious  and  the  absolutely  indefinable  working 
of  the  Spirit :  “The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither 
it  goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.”  (St.  Jn.  3:8.) 

In  view  of  this  teaching,  the  attempt  to  enchain  the  Spirit  to  the 
water,  or  even  to  the  act  of  Baptism,  or  to  the  elements,  or  even 
to  the  act  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  is  futile  on  the  very  face  of  it. 
The  Holy  Spirit  may  organize  men,  but  men  cannot  organize  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Jesus,  indeed,  must  have  been  unalterably  opposed 
to  such  materialistic  conceptions ;  while  His  spirit  and  teaching 
made  Him  the  inveterate  opponent  of  the  idea  of  an  ecclesiastical 
institution,  which  should  be  the  chief  depository  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  its  chief  channel  of  communication :  in  other  words, 
an  ecclesiastical  trust  or  monopoly,  the  earliest  of  all  monopolies, 
the  parent  of  all  trusts,  and  the  most  remorseless.  The  darting 
tongues  of  fire  would  recall  John’s  promise  of  the  Messiah’s  bap¬ 
tism,  which  would  “burn  up  the  chaff”  of  error,  sham,  and  evil 
“with  unquenchable  fire.”  (St.  Mt.  3:11.)  The  gift  of  tongues,  or 
the  ability  to  speak  in  foreign  languages,  which  enabled  the  Apostles 
to  gain  on  that  day  many  converts  for  the  Kingdom,  who  would 
become  its  witnesses  upon  their  return  to  their  homes,  thus  pre- 


224 


Jesus1  Idea 


In  the  light  of  this  teaching  of  Jesus  about  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  sublime  meaning  of  the  Baptismal  Formula  again 
comes  into  view.  Into  that  Spirit  of  Truth  and  of  Holiness, 
into  which  the  Father  had  baptized  Him — the  Spirit,  which 
according  to  Jesus’  own  testimony,  was  the  source  of  His 
Teaching  and  His  Miracles  (St.  Mt.  12:28;  St.  Lu.  4:18; 
St.  Jn.  14:10),  He  would  baptize  the  Apostles,  who  in  turn 
should  baptize  the  nations  of  the  earth.  Language  is  inade¬ 
quate  to  do  justice  to  the  sublimity  of  this  conception.  That 
Jesus’  emphasis,  however,  was  upon  the  function  rather  than 
the  “Personality”  of  the  Spirit  is  patent  to  every  reader  of 
the  New  Testament  page.  While  He  did  perhaps  speak  of 
the  Spirit  as  “he,”  and  thus  appears  to  justify  the  orthodox 
Christian  faith,  yet  many  thoughtful  minds  have  agreed  with 
Beyschlag  that  this  personal  reference  is  “just  a  pictorial  per¬ 
sonification,”  and  that  “the  notion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a 
third  Divine  personality — is  one  of  the  most  disastrous  im¬ 
portations  into  the  Holy  Scriptures”  (“N.  T.  Theology,”  Eng. 
Translation.  Vol.  2,  p.  279),  and  yet  they  have  not  lost  faith 
in  the  Spirit’s  work.  This  brings  vividly  to  our  attention  one 
of  those  monstrous  anomalies  which  exist  and  thrive  in  the 
Christian  Church :  A  man  may  deny  totally  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  conduct  of  his  daily  life,  and  yet  be  a  member  of  the 
visible  Church,  have  obsequious  attention  paid  to  him  by 
titled  ecclesiastics — upholders  of  the  much-talked  of  “Catholic 
Faith” — while  the  man  whose  whole  life  is  attuned  to  the 
Spirit’s  guidance,  yet  who  cannot  and  does  not  accept  the 
“personality”  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  be  a  member  of  the 
orthodox  (?)  Church,  and  is  often,  with  much  patronizing  con¬ 
descension  on  the  part  of  both  intellectual  and  moral  vacuity, 
accounted  a  “heretic.”  Manifestly,  God’s  ways  are  not  man’s 
ways,  nor  are  His  thoughts  man’s  thoughts  even  in  His  “Holy 
Church”  of  which  we  frequently  hear  so  much. 

Having  now  considered  some  of  the  supernatural  features 
of  the  Gospel,  let  us  say  that,  whatever  may  be  our  attitude 
toward  the  Supernatural  and  the  Kingdom,  any  candid  mind 
must  admit  that  there  is  a  unity,  a  harmony,  and  congruity  in 

paring  the  soil  for  the  future  labors  of  the  Apostles,  was  a  distinct 
evidence  of  the  universal  aim  or  extent  of  the  Kingdom.  This 
gift,  however,  was  not  a  permanent  one.  (Cf.  St.  Mk.  16:17.) 


The  Kingdom  and  the  Supernatural  225 

the  relation  of  the  two  as  they  are  disclosed  in  the  Gospels  that 
makes  for  truthfulness.  The  Supernatural  occurrence  and  the 
Teaching  harmonize;  the  miraculous  events  accord  with  each 
other;  part  fits  in  with  part;  the  whole  is  logical  and  rational. 
Further,  the  very  idea — “The  Kingdom  of  God” — posits  a 
supernatural  element.  Such  an  element,  indeed,  was  to  be  ex¬ 
pected  in  view  of  what  Jesus  was  endeavoring  to  do  with  a 
sinful  humanity:  establish  the  sovereignty  of  God.  This 
thought,  also,  assists  us  in  interpreting  the  miracles  of  the  Old 
Testament;  not  that  we  are  to  accept  unquestioningly  the 
miraculous  character  of  every  event  which  purports  to  be  a 
miracle,  for  we  are  rather  to  question  them  severely.  We 
should,  however,  bear  in  mind  the  unique  mission  of  Israel, 
which,  under  certain  circumstances,  would  render  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  miracles  likely.  This  thought  also  gives  the  point  of 
view  from  which  to  determine  the  possibility  and  the  probability 
of  the  various  New  Testament  miracles,  and  also  of  later  ec¬ 
clesiastical  miracles.  » 


CHAPTER  XV 


THE  VICEGERENT  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

In  view  of  the  Teaching  and  the  Works  of  Jesus,  we  are 
not  surprised  to  find  that  men  both  wondered  and  questioned 
with  regard  to  Him.  “From  whence  hath  this  man  these 
things?  and  what  wisdom  is  this  which  is  given  unto  him, 
that  even  such  mighty  works  are  wrought  by  his  hands?  Is 
not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James, 
and  Joses,  and  of  Juda,  and  Simon?  and  are  not  his  sisters 
here  with  us?”  (St.  Mk.  6:2,  3.)  Yet  “never  man  spake  like 
this  man.”  “Who  is  this  that  even  the  winds  and  the  sea 
obey  him?”  The  problem,  indeed,  that  perplexed  his  country¬ 
men  has  perplexed  the  world.  Who  was  this  man  of  this 
august  idea,  these  mighty  works,  this  majestic  personality? 
He  flashed  across  the  sky  of  human  life  like  a  meteor,  brilliant 
and  dazzling,  whose  splendor  was  unequaled  before  and  has 
remained  unrivaled,  challenging  comparison  and  classification. 
Jesus  and  His  idea,  indeed,  are  so  intimately  related — the 
idea  being  incarnate  in  the  Man — that  any  study  of  His  idea 
would  be  incomplete  without  some  consideration  as  to  His 
Person.  Hence  we  ask:  Who  was  this  Man?  What,  especially, 
did  He  say  of  Himself? 

As  soon  as  this  question  is  asked,  Jesus’  self-selected  and 
self-imposed  title — “Son  of  Man” — presents  itself  for  con¬ 
sideration.  This  title  is  represented  as  being  used  by  Jesus 
about  eighty  times  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  while  it  is  never 
applied  to  Him  by  His  followers  except  in  the  speech  of  St. 
Stephen  (Acts  7:56).  If  we  study  these  various  passages  in 
detail,  we  find  that  they  refer  to  Jesus  under  two  rather  para¬ 
doxical  aspects:  that  of  suffering  or  humiliation ,  and  that  of 
majesty.  This  at  first  sight  perplexes.  We  know  also  that  the 
title  was  not  a  commonly  accepted  designation  for  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  because  Jesus  carefully  concealed  His  Messiahship,  while 

226 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


,  227 


freely  applying  this  expression  to  Himself.  It  was  not,  however, 
an  unknown  term.  In  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  expres¬ 
sion  used  in  several  senses.1 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  Jesus’  use  of  the 
title  was  historically  connected  with  Daniel  7:13.  There 
we  find  the  historic  expression  of  Jesus’  great  idea  and  theme — 
“The  Kingdom  of  God.”  Hence  nothing  could  be  more 
likelv  than  the  derivation  of  this  title  from  the  same  source. 
This  is  indicated,  too,  in  marked  manner  by  Jesus’  obvious 
reference  to  this  passage  in  the  apocalyptic  discourse  in  St. 
Matthew  24:30:  “And  then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the 
Son  of  Man  in  heaven:  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the 

1  In  Psalm  8:4,  for  instance,  it  refers  to  man  as  the  subject  of 
weakness  and  mortality:  “What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of 
him?  and  the  son  of  man,  that  thou  visitest  him/’  In  the  Book 
of  Ezekiel  it  is  used  some  eighty  times  to  designate  the  prophet, 
especially  emphasizing  the  aspect  of  weakness.  In  Daniel  7:13, 
as  we  have  found,  the  expression  was  applied  to  Israel  as  the 
Founder  of  a  Kingdom  humane  in  character,  while  later  it  was 
thought  in  limited  circles  to  refer  to  the  personal  Messiah.  This 
conception,  indeed,  characterizes  its  use  in  the  Apocalyptic  Book 
of  Enoch.  Illustrative  of  this  usage  are  the  passages :  “And  I 
asked  the  angel  who  went  with  me  and  shewed  me  all  the  hidden 
things,  concerning  that  Son  of  Man,  who  he  was,  and  whence  he 

was”  (46:1).  “For  the  Son  of  Man  has  appeared  and  sits  on  the 

throne  of  his  glory”  (69:29).  Scholars  are  divided  in  opinion  as 
to  whether  the  portion  of  this  book — the  Similitudes,  Chs.  37  \  ji — 
which  contain  these  references  to  the  Son  of  Man  are  pre-Christian 
or  post-Christian  in  origin.  Hence  it  is  impossible  to  judge  of  the 
influence,  if  any,  of  this  book  upon  Jesus’  usage  of  this  title.  But 
just  how  this  title  came  to  be  applied  to  an  individual  is,  indeed,  a 
puzzling  question. 

Jesus’  motive  in  the  selection  of  this  title  has  been  variously 

explained.  Meyer  says,  for  instance,  that  He  intended  it  to  signify 

simply  the  Messiah.  Schleiermacher  and  Neander  find  in  it  the  idea 
of  the  Ideal  Man.  Orr,  Baur,  and  others,  combine  these  two  ideas, 
and  make  it  signify  a  Messiah  who  is  the  Ideal  Man.  Wendt  finds 
the  title  indicative  of  Jesus’  weakness  and  dignity,  Daniel  furnishing 
the  form  of  the  title,  and  other  passages  its  content.  Charles,  again, 
interprets  the  expression  as  combining  the  idea  of  majesty  disclosed 
in  Daniel,  and  the  Suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  Second 
Isaiah.  Others,  however,  empty  the  term  of  Messianic  significance, 
and  make  it  the  equivalent  of  the  Aramaic  word  for  man — barnasha. 
Others,  again,  find  its  significance  in  the  promise  in  Genesis  that 
the  seed  of  the  woman  should  crush  the  serpent’s  head.  Jesus  was 
this  Son  of  Man,  they  claim. 


228 


Jesus’  Idea 


earth  mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great  glory”  (cf.  St.  Mk. 
13:26;  St.  Lu.  21:27);  and  in  His  admission  before  the 
Sanhedrin:  “Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting 
on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven”  (St.  Mt.  26:64,  cf.  St.  Mk.  14:62).  By  means  of 
this  title,  then,  Jesus  referred  to  Himself  as  the  Founder 
and  the  Head  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Borrowing  the  Old 
Testament  term,  He  fulfilled  it  however.  The  expression 
became  with  Him  not  only  a  title,  but  an  index  to  character. 
It  revealed  not  only  the  King  of  the  Kingdom,  but  one  who 
through  humiliation  and  suffering  entered  into  the  glory  of 
sovereignty.  It  suggested  not  only  Daniel’s  imperial  vision, 
but  the  prophetic  idea  of  the  Messiah’s  triumph  through  weak¬ 
ness  and  pain. 

Possessing  these  merits,  the  title  served  admirably  as  a 
veiled  designation  of  the  Messiah.1  This  expression,  indeed, 
was  as  suggestive  as  the  parables  themselves.  The  same  motive, 
too,  probably  governed  its  selection,  and  certainly  the  same 
principle  conditioned  appreciation  of  its  meaning.  To  all  it 
was  puzzling;  to  some  it  remained  insoluble;  to  those  of 
spiritual  insight  it  disclosed  the  Person  and  the  Pathway  of 
the  Messiah.2  Indeed,  the  implication  of  this  title  is  pro¬ 
found  and  far-reaching.  This  must  have  especially  com¬ 
mended  it  to  the  poetic  temperament  of  Jesus.  For  instance, 
the  Son  of  Man  “comes  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.”  Pro¬ 
fessor  Dalman  suggests  that  it  would  be  more  appropriate 
if  the  one  like  to  a  son  of  man  were  to  come  “ upon  the  clouds 
of  heaven,”  and  remarks  that  such  a  reading  appears  to  be 
presupposed  by  the  Greek  oh  the  Septuagint  in  Daniel  7:13. 
He  then  adds:  “It  belongs  to  God  only  to  move  upon  the 
clouds;  see  Isa.  19:1,  Ps.  104:3.”  And  after  explaining  how 
“upon”  probably  would  have  been  changed  into  “with”  by  a 
subsequent  writer  to  “minimize  the  divine  manifestation  in  the 
one  like  to  a  son  of  man,”  he  says:  “But  even  if  one  reads 

1  Jesus’  teaching  was  the  product  of  intuition:  hence  its  form 
was  illustrative,  rather  than  argumentative. 

2  To  the  Apostles,  the  meaning  of  the  expression  became  some¬ 
what  apparent  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  while  it  was  disclosed  to  the 
Jewish  nation  in  Jesus’  confession  before  the  Sanhedrin,  which  has 
been  quoted  above. 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom  229 

'with/'  the  fact  remains  that  the  destined  possessor  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  dominion  comes,  not  from  the  earth,  far  less  from  the  sea, 
but  from  heaven.  He  is  a  being  standing  in  a  near  relation 
to  God,  well  fitted  to  typify  the  people  of  the  saints  of  God. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  nothing  more  is  said  of  him  than  that  he 
resembles  man.  He  is  distinguished  from  the  four  beasts,  not 
because  he  alone  possesses  reason;  the  first  beast,  according  to 
7:14,  receives  a  man’s  heart,  the  last  has  ‘the  eyes  of  a  man,’ 
and  can  speak.  The  emphasis  rather  lies  on  the  fact  that  in  con¬ 
trast  with  the  winged  lion,  the  devouring  bear,  the  four¬ 
headed  leopard,  the  fourth  beast  with  ten  horns  terrible  ex¬ 
ceedingly  beyond  its  predecessors,  he  appears  unarmed  and 
inoffensive,  incapable  through  any  power  of  his  own  of  making 
himself  master  of  the  world;  he  is  only  as  a  son  of  man.  If 
ever  he  is  to  be  master  of  the  world,  God  must  make  him  so.” 
(“The  Words  of  Jesus,”  p.  242.)  The  humane  character 
of  the  Son  of  Man  in  contrast  with  the  brutishness  of  his 
predecessors,  would  also  suggest  intense  human  sympathy.  Now 
because  of  this  great  suggestiveness,  Jesus  gladly  availed  Him¬ 
self  of  the  term,  while  carefully  avoiding  the  popular  designa¬ 
tion  for  the  expected  Messiah — “The  Son  of  David.”  Con¬ 
tradicting  in  every  particular  the  current  Messianic  expectation, 
it  yet  brought  out  His  relation  to  the  earth  and  to  man,  while 
suggesting  much  with  regard  to  Himself. 

This  title,  however,  does  not  exhaust  Jesus’  testimony  to 
Himself.  Additional  disclosures  group  themselves  around  the 
title — “Son  of  God.”  While  this  expression  is  never  explicitly 
applied  by  Jesus  to  Himself  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  it  is  im¬ 
plicitly  applied,  and  is  frequently  used  of  Him  by  others.  In 
St.  John’s  Gospel,  however,  the  term  is  frequently  used  by 
Jesus.  What,  then,  is  signified  by  its  use?  Here  again  we  must 
turn  to  the  Old  Testament.  And  there  a  diversified  usage 
awaits  us.1  Taking  the  title  itself,  however,  as  it  was  used 

1  In  Genesis  6:1-4,  the  title  is  applied  to  angels:  “The  sons  of 
God  saw  the  daughters  of  men  that  they  were  fair ;  and  they  took 
them  wives  of  all  which  they  chose.”  In  Psalm  82  :6,  7,  it  is  applied 
to  judges  or  magistrates:  “I  have  said,  Ye  are  Gods;  and  all  of 
you  are  children  of  the  Most  High.”  In  Deuteronomy  14:1,  2,  and 
Hosea  1:10,  it  is  used  of  an  individual  Israelite.  In  2  Samuel  7:14, 
and  Psalm  89:27,  and  2:7,  the  term  is  used  especially  of  the 
Theocratic  King.  In  Exodus  4:22,  Israel  as  a  nation  is  spoken 


230 


J esus}  Idea 


among  the  Jews,  its  patent  senses  are  the  human,  the  official,  and 
the  ethical.  The  “Son  of  God”  is  either  simply  a  human  being, 
or  one  chosen  for  some  special  mission,  or  one  bearing  special 
moral  and  spiritual  resemblance  to  God.  It  now  remains  for  us 
to  consider  the  sense  or  senses  of  the  title  as  it  is  applied  to 
Jesus. 

The  expression  is  never  used  of  Jesus  by  Himself  or  by 
others  as  the  mere  equivalent  of  a  human  being.  Whatever 
the  motive  may  have  been,  Jesus,  if  we  may  trust  the  Greek 
of  the  Gospels,  always  carefully  preserved  a  distinction  between 
Himself  and  humanity  in  general.  He  speaks,  for  instance,  of 
“My  Father”  ( St.  Mt.  1 1  127,  20 123,  25  134,  26 129,  53  ;  St.  Lu. 
10:22),  and  of  “your”  or  “thy”  Father  (St.  Mt.  6:8;  10:20, 
29;  13:43;  6:4,  18)  with  careful  discrimination,  and  if  we 

of  as  Jehovah’s  Son — “even  my  first-born.”  Generalizing  from  these 
instances,  and  speaking  freely,  we  may  say  that  “a  son  of  God”  in 
the  Old  Testament  sense  is  “one  uniquely  loved,  chosen,  and  endowed 
by  God.”  In  the  extra-canonical  literature  of  the  Jews,  only  the 
Book  of  Enoch  and  Fourth  Esdras  use  the  title.  While  it  is  not 
employed  specifically  of  the  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is 
so  employed  in  these  books.  Jehovah  is  represented  as  saying:  “For 

1  and  my  Son  will  unite  with  them  forever  in  the  paths  of  up¬ 
rightness  in  their  lives;  and  ye  will  have  peace.”  (Enoch  105:2.) 
“For  my  Son,  Messias,  shall  be  revealed  with  those  that  are  with 
him.”  (4  Es.  7:28,  cf.  7:29.)  Thus,  among  the  Jews,  the  expression 
was  occasionally  used  as  a  title  for  the  Messiah. 

The  chief  source,  however,  in  the  Old  Testament  for  this  use 
is  Psalm  2:7:  “The  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son; 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.”  But  this  language,  which  is  used  of 
the  king  of  the  Theocracy,  must  be  considered  in  connection  with 

2  Samuel  7:14,  where  the  promise  is  made  that  Jehovah  will  be  to 
the  house  of  David  as  a  father  is  to  a  son:  “I  will  be  his  father, 
and  he  shall  be  my  son.”  In  the  Psalm,  the  title  is  used  simply  of 
one  who  is  anointed  of  God,  and  receives  the  heathen  for  inheritance 
and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  possession  (vs.  8).  While 
“Son  of  God”  in  the  popular  thought  of  to-day  suggests  at  once 
divine  descent,  it  was  not  so  among  the  Jews.  Unlike  the  Egyptians 
and  even  the  Romans,  the  Jews  did  not  ascribe  divine  origin  either 
to  the  nation  or  to  its  kings ;  hence  the  idea  of  the  “Anointed” 
Son  possessing  the  divine  nature  was  foreign  to  them.  Because 
of  this  idea  of  Divine  Descent,  however,  in  the  Hellenic  world,  the 
term,  “Son  of  God,”  would  be  interpreted  as  signifying  the  divine 
origin  of  Jesus,  quite  as  naturally  as  “the  Son  of  Man”  would 
suggest  His  essential  humanity.  (See  Dalman,  “Words  of  Jesus,” 
pp.  288,  289.) 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


231 


may  judge  from  St.  Luke  2:49,  this  usage  dates  from  His 
childhood.  The  only  apparent  violation  of  this  rule  is  in  the 
words  “Our  Father”  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  These,  however, 
were  a  necessity,  if  He  would  furnish  His  followers  with  a 
model  prayer.  This  careful  distinction  is  also  preserved  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  by  means  of  the  words  “only  begotten  Son V 
that  is  a  son  different  from  other  sons  in  marked  manner. 

In  an  official  sense,  the  title  is  applied  to  Our  Lord  both 
by  Himself  and  by  others.  St.  Peter’s  response  to  Jesus’  ques¬ 
tion  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  according  to  St.  Matthew’s  version, 
is:  “Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living  God V  This 
meant,  of  course,  that  Jesus  was  the  “Anointed”  one,  or  the 
Messiah.  In  commending  St.  Peter’s  insight,  Jesus  admitted 
the  truthfulness  of  his  avowal,  and  thus  practically  applied  the 
title  to  Himself.1  Perhaps  the  most  explicit  use  of  this  title, 
however,  in  an  official  sense  was  Jesus’  declaration  before  the 
Sanhedrin:  “The  High  Priest  .  .  .  said  unto  him,  I  adjure  thee 
by  the  living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said”  (St. 
Mt.  26:63;  cf.  St.  Mk.  14:61  and  St.  Lu.  22:66-71).  The 
title,  however,  is  frequently  applied  to  Jesus  by  others  in  this 
sense.  At  His  Baptism,  the  Divine  Voice  declared:  “Thou  art 
my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased”  (St.  Mk.  1 : 1 1 ; 
St.  Lu.  3:22;  St.  Mt.  3:17).  A  similar  declaration  was  also 
made  at  the  Transfiguration  (St.  Mt.  9:8;  St.  Lu.  9:35;  St. 
Mt.  17:5).  Here  the  official  sense,  while  not  exclusive,  is 

1  St.  Mark  8:27-30,  and  St.  Luke  9:18-21,  make  Peter  say  simply, 
“Thou  art  the  Christ.”  If  this  is  the  original,  St.  Matthew  at  least 
offers  an  interesting  use  of  the  expression.  In  speaking  of  the 
time  of  the  Parousia,  Jesus  says:  “Of  that  day,  and  that  hour 
knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father.”  (St.  Mt.  13:32,  cf.  Zech.  14:7  and  Ps. 
Sol.  12:23.)  Here  the  reference  is  manifestly  to  Himself  as  the 
Son  of  God.  In  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen,  as  we 
have  seen,  Jesus  identifies  Himself  with  the  son  of  the  Lord  of 
the  Vineyard,  the  heir  of  the  inheritance.  Since  God  is  manifestly 
the  Lord,  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  “Having  therefore  one  son,  his 
well-beloved,  he  sent  him  also  last  unto  them,  saying,  They  will 
reverence  my  son.”  (St.  Mk.  12:6.)  Again  in  the  parable  of  the 
King’s  Supper,  Jesus  implies  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God.  “The 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  unto  a  certain  king,  which  made  a 
marriage  for  his  son.”  (St.  Mt.  22:2.) 


232 


Jesus’  Idea 


prominent.1 

The  ethical  sense  of  this  expression,  however,  is  paramount 
in  the  New  Testament.  Jesus,  at  least,  could  have  been  satis¬ 
fied  with  nothing  less  than  this  usage.  He  was  preeminently 
the  Son  of  God  in  that  He  bore  most  intimate  spiritual  re¬ 
lationship  to  the  Father.  This  is  evident  from  His  own  words: 
“No  man  knoweth  the  Son ,  but  the  Father ;  neither  knoweth  any 
man  the  Father ,  save  the  Son ,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
will  reveal  him”  (St.  Mt.  11:27,  c f*  St.  Lu.  10:22).  These 
words,  indeed,  are  most  significant.  They  imply  an  ethical 
unity  between  Jesus  and  God  which  is  absolutely  indivisible, 
and  upon  which  hangs  the  revelation  of  Jesus.  The  words 
of  Dalman  are  so  helpful  here  that  we  quote  them.  “Between 
Father  and  Son  there  exists  a  perfect  mutual  understanding 
so  unique,  that  any  other  persons  could  participate  in  the  com¬ 
plete  knowledge  of  the  Father  only  through  the  medium  of  the 
Son.  The  two  clauses  referring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Son 
by  the  Father  and  of  the  Father  by  the  Son  must  therefore 
be  taken  together,  and  not  independently  expounded.  They 
really  constitute  a  detailed  Oriental  mode  of  expressing  the 
reciprocity  of  intimate  understanding.  But  in  this  case  of 
mutual  understanding,  its  thoroughness  and  absolute  infallibility 
are  assumed.  He  who  stands  in  so  uniquely  close  relation  to 
God  is  the  only  possible  mediator  of  the  kind,  and  also  at  the 
same  time  the  absolutely  reliable  revealer  of  the  whole  wealth 
of  divine  mysteries.”  (“Words  of  Jesus,”  p.  283.) 

Jesus  was  thus  in  a  unique  sense  the  Son  of  God.  While 
men  could  become  sons  of  God:  “Blessed  are  the  peace¬ 
makers:  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God;”  “Love 
your  enemies — that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,”  Jesus  was  ab  initio  the  Son  of  God.  “Be- 


1  The  demoniacs  of  Gadara  are  also  represented  as  addressing 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God.  (St.  Mk.  5:7;  St.  Lu.  8:28;  St.  Mt.  8:29.) 
Again  the  multitude  at  the  Cross,  according  to  St.  Matthew,  mock 
Jesus,  crying:  “If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  from  the 
cross,”  while  the  centurion  exclaims:  “Truly  this  man  was  the 
Son  of  God.”  (St.  Mk.  15:39;  St.  Mt.  27:54;  cf.  St.  Lu.  23:47; 
St.  Matthew  27  :40.  St.  Mark  15  :32,  however,  has  “the  Christ,  the 
king  of  Israel”;  St.  Luke  23:37,  “the  King  of  the  Jews.”)  Associa¬ 
tion  with  the  Jews  may  have  made  the  centurion  conversant  with 
their  use  of  the  title,  or  he  may  have  intended  simply  a  demi-god. 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


233 


coming”  was  impossible  and  unnecessary.  This  spiritual  union 
of  Jesus  with  the  Father  is  also  to  be  posited  from  the  Divine 
Voice  at  the  Baptism  and  at  the  Transfiguration.  In  fact,  it  dis¬ 
closes  itself  throughout  the  entire  career  of  Jesus:  in  His 
prayers,  in  His  actions,  and  in  His  words.  Everywhere  it 
presents  the  character  of  uniqueness.  Dalman  is  again  helpful: 
“The  peculiar  relation  of  Jesus  to  God  is  one  that  cannot  be 
transmitted  to  others  or  be  subject  to  change.  His  disciples,  in¬ 
deed,  through  His  means  attain  the  same  knowledge  of  God  that 
He  Himself  possessed.  But  their  knowledge  is  derived  through 
a  medium,  while  His  is  acquired  by  direct  intuition”  (p.  284). 
This  ethical  union  with  the  Father  is  also  a  basic  thought  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  most  conspicuous  in  the  following 
passages:  St.  John  3:16-21;  5:16-47;  6:32-58;  8:45-58;  10:30- 
38;  14:11 ;  17:5,  21,  23.  We  will  quote  only  one  or  two  of  the 
texts,  howrever.  “That  they  all  may  be  one;  as  thou,  Father,  art 
in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us:  that 
the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me”  (17:21).  “I 
and  my  Father  are  one”  (10:30).  “The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  himself  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do:  for  what  things 
soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise”  (5:19). 

Now  this  ethical  union  of  Jesus  with  God  in  itself  raises 
a  question  of  vast  import.  How  was  it  that  this  man  alone 
of  all  the  sons  of  men  possessed  this  peculiar  affinity?  From 
the  beginning  of  time,  no  other  man  has  borne  an  ethical  resem¬ 
blance  to  God  of  so  intimate  a  character  as  to  fit  him  to  be  an 
absolute  intermediary  between  heaven  and  earth.  How,  then, 
shall  we  explain  the  sinlessness — the  absolute  ethical  purity  of 
Jesus?  No  thoughtful  mind,  indeed,  can  escape  the  problem, 
and  the  solution  at  once  beckons  us  toward  the  realm  of 
metaphysics,  where  we  consider  the  innermost  essence  of  being. 
The  question  then  becomes:  Was  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  only 
in  an  official  and  an  ethical  sense,  or  is  an  even  more  intimate 
essential  relationship  to  be  claimed  for  Him? 

Upon  this  point  there  are  no  absolutely  clear  statements 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  There  are,  however,  some  very 
suggestive  passages.1  But  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  advance 
a  step.  Implicit  testimony  becomes  explicit  testimony.  For 

1  See  Appendix  J,  “The  Metaphysical  Sonship  of  Jesus  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.” 


234 


Jesus’  Idea 


instance,  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying  to  the  disciples:  “What 
and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  up  where  he  was 
before f”  (St.  John  6:62).  This  statement  also  is  convincing: 
“Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day:  and  he  saw  it 
and  was  glad.  Then  said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Thou  art  not 
yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham?  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am ”  (8:56-58).  This  seems  to  imply  that  Jesus  ex¬ 
isted  before  Abraham  was  born.  Jesus  also  cries:  “O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had 
with  thee  before  the  world  was  .  .  .  Father,  I  will  that  they  also, 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me  where  I  am;  that  they 
may  behold  my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me:  for  thou 
lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world”  ( 17 :5 >  24)* 
Now  it  seems  impossible  fairly  to  explain  such  language  figura¬ 
tively.  The  language  is  unprecedented  and  unique;  it  is  fact, 
or  it  is  nothing.  Further  we  have  here  only  the  direct  avowal 
of  that  for  which  the  Synoptic  Gospels  have  prepared  us — the 
Supernatural  Character  and  the  Preexistence  of  the  Son  Him¬ 
self.  This  doubtlessly  is  the  conviction  which  has  been  growing 
upon  the  reader  of  these  pages.  Many  statements,  indeed,  in  the 
Gospels  indicate  the  superhuman  and  the  transcendent  in  Christ. 
His  regal  tone  everywhere  exhibited,  but  especially  in  such  a 
passage  as  St.  Matthew  24:35  (cf.  St.  Lu.  21:33):  “Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away;” 
His  august  claims:  to  an  authority  and  affection  greater  than 
that  given  to  father  and  mother  (St.  Mt.  10:37,  cf.  St.  Lu. 
14:26),  to  forgive  sins  (St.  Mt.  9:2-6;  5:20-24),  to  judge  men 
according  to  their  personal  relationship  to  Himself  (St.  Mt. 
5:21 ;  12:8;  19:4),  and  to  be  the  peace  of  the  weary  soul  (St. 
Mt.  11:28),  are  only  adequately  explained  by  His  essential 
Deity.  The  authoritative  note  in  Jesus’  teaching,  His  filial 
consciousness,  and  His  promise  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  also  in¬ 
cline  to  a  similar  conclusion. 

We  thus  see  why  Jesus  so  carefully  distinguished  between 
His  own  Sonship  to  God,  and  that  of  other  men.  We  also 
see  why  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  could  bear  such  unequivocal 
testimony  to  Jesus’  Divinity.  The  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
could  say:  “Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ 
Jesus:  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to 


235 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 

be  equal  with  God;  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and 
took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men :  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he 
humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  Cross.  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name :  That 
at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in 
heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth;  And 
that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father”  (Phil.  2 :6-i  i ) .  St.  John,  writing 
subsequently,  could  add:  “In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made  by 
him;  and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made. 
In  him  was  life;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.  And 
the  light  shineth  in  darkness;  and  the  darkness  comprehended 
it  not.  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name  was 
John.  The  same  came  for  a  witness,  to  bear  witness  of  the 
Light,  that  all  men  through  him  might  believe.  He  was 
not  that  Light,  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness  of  that  Light. 
That  was  the  true  Light,  which  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world 
was  made  by  him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not.  He  came  unto 
his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.  But  as  many  as  re¬ 
ceived  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name:  Which  were  born,  not 
of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh ,  and  dwelt  among 
us,  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begotten 
of  the  Father,)  full  of  grace  and  truth'’  (i  :i-I4).1 

1  See  also  2  Cor.  8:9;  Gal.  4:4;  Col.  1  and  2  chapters,  and  Heb. 
1  : 1-4.  These  passages  show  that  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  only  a  fuller,  and  more  concrete  enunciation  of  an  earlier 
Christian  conviction  and  belief.  (See  Appendix  K,  “The  Logos 
Idea.”) 

This  interpretation  of  the  Personality  of  Jesus,  however,  is  dis¬ 
pleasing  to  some.  Schweitzer  in  his  admirable  book,  “The  Quest  of 
the  Plistorical  Jesus,”  recounts  the  chief  attempts  at  other  inter¬ 
pretations  for  more  than  a  hundred  years.  Apart  from  its  value 
as  a  Historical  Resume  and  Criticism,  the  chief  value  of  the  volume 
lies  in  the  futility  of  the  quest  which  it  records.  Nevertheless  a 
crucial  question  of  our  time  is  this :  Admitting  readily  the  Pauline 


236 


Jesus’  Idea 


Thus  we  find  that  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  set 
forth  in  the  New  Testament  has  not  only  the  prestige  of  Truth, 
and  of  self-evidencing  Power,  of  Miracles,  and  of  a  spotless 
Personality,  which  became  the  center  of  supernatural  phenom¬ 
ena,  but  it  has  also  the  prestige  of  having  the  Eternal  Son 
of  God — Himself  Supernatural — as  its  Sponsor,  Apologist  and 
Advocate.  And  further,  the  end  is  certainly  worthy  of  the 
means.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  redemption,  salvation,  and 
the  consummation  of  the  Eternal  Purpose,  and  this  certainly 
is  worthy  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Again,  in 
the  light  of  this  reasonable  Incarnation,  how  plausible  miracles 
become,  and  also  the  Supernatural  Phenomena  of  which  Jesus 
was  the  Subject.  We  begin,  also,  to  realize  the  pregnancy 
of  the  words — “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven” — the  Kingdom  of 
God,  indeed,  not  only  in  its  character,  but  in  its  source  and 
Prime  Agent. 

A  concluding  thought  now  awaits  us.  If  a  Divine  Being  was 
to  enter  into  human  life,  how  was  such  entrance  to  be  effected? 
The  answer  of  the  Gospel  is  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ.1 
This  at  once  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  most  startling 
supernatural  feature  in  the  New  Testament.  The  story  of  the 
Virgin  Birth,  however,  is  extremely  surprising  when  we 
note  the  numerous  passages  in  the  Gospels — even  in  St.  Mat¬ 
thew  and  in  St.  Luke — in  which  Jesus  is  popularly  regarded  as 
the  natural  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  Questions  and  allu¬ 
sions  alike  reveal  this  clearly  (St.  Jn.  1:45;  St.  Mt.  13:55; 
St.  Mk.  6:3;  St.  Lu.  4:22,  2:27,  41:43,  33:48). 2  This,  how¬ 
ever,  upon  reflection,  is  what  one  would  expect.  The  fact 

and  Johanine  interpretation  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  what  is  its 
worth?  Is  it  fact  or  mere  theological  speculation?  Another  hardly 
less  crucial  question  is  this :  Admitting  the  authoritative  character 
of  their  interpretation,  what  is  its  relationship  to  essential  Chris¬ 
tianity?  Is  it  an  integral  element  or  a  non-essential  of  belief? 

1We  must  bear  in  mind,  however,  that  the  accounts  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  when  taken  by  themselves,  obviously  record  the  begetting  of 
a  new  being. 

2  To  this  common  supposition,  and  the  conviction  that  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah,  or  Son  of  David,  must  be  descended  from  David,  we 
owe  also  the  genealogies  given  in  St.  Matthew  1  :i-i8  and  St.  Luke 
3  :23-38,  both  of  which,  according  to  general  admission,  are  geneal¬ 
ogies  of  Joseph,  and  attempts  to  trace  Jesus’  descent  from  David 
through  him. 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


237 


of  the  Virgin  Birth  would  naturally  be  very  slow  in  becoming 
known,  because  of  the  very  delicacy  of  the  subject.  Joseph  and 
Mary  would  keep  the  great  secret  to  themselves,  not  only  in 
their  own  interest,  but  especially  in  the  interest  of  the  Child, 
shrinking  from  the  possible  base  accusations  of  slanderous 
tongues.  Subsequently,  too,  Christianity  had  enough  obstacles 
in  its  early  progress  without  rearing  an  additional  one  in  the 
wide-spread  proclamation  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  To-day  even, 
this  truth  is  not  among  the  first  taught  to  children,  neither  is 
it  in  the  forefront  of  discreet  missionary  preaching.  To  the 
child,  the  fact  is  unintelligible;  to  the  heathen,  it  is  fantastic. 
Again,  Jesus  never  made  the  fact  a  part  of  His  teaching,  nor  a 
sign  of  His  authority.  In  doing  so,  indeed,  He  would  have 
violated  His  self-chosen  principle  of  appealing  to  man  simply 
as  man,  that  is,  along  the  line  of  His  humanity.  The  Apostles 
themselves  were  probably  unaware  of  the  Virgin  Birth  for  a 
long  while,  and  some  of  them  may  have  died  without  any 
knowledge  of  the  fact.  The  event  itself  could  only  have  become 
at  all  intelligible  after  the  Apostles  had  become  convinced  of 
Jesus’  essential  Divinity,  and  of  this,  as  we  have  seen,  they 
were  not  convinced  at  first.  Faith  in  Jesus’  divinity,  in  fact, 
arose  from  an  ardent  faith  in  His  humanity.  Mary  herself  was 
probably  never  fully  aware  of  the  unique  character  of  her 
Son.  The  angel’s  message  meant  to  her  simply  that  her  child 
would  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  who  had  been  super- 
naturally  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  the  writers 
of  the  Gospels  are  true  to  fact  when  they  represent  Jesus  as 
popularly  regarded  as  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  It  becomes 
necessary,  then,  to  ask:  Where  shall  we  turn  for  the  origin  of 
the  strange  story  given  by  St.  Matthew  and  by  St.  Luke?  1 
The  source  of  St.  Matthew’s  narrative,  which  is  centered 
about  Joseph  in  a  peculiar  manner,  is  unknown.  St.  Luke’s 
information,  however,  is  commonly  regarded  as  having  come 
more  or  less  directly  from  the  Virgin  herself.  (Cf.  St.  Lu. 
2:19,  51.)  Professor  Ramsey,  indeed,  says:  “Luke  gives,  from 
knowledge  gained  within  the  family,  an  account  of  facts  known 
only  to  the  family,  and  in  part  to  the  Mother  alone.”  (“Was 
Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?”  p.  79).  The  womanly  delicacy 
and  reserve  in  the  narrative  itself  is  also  in  favor  of  this  conclu- 

1  See  Appendix  L,  “The  Accounts  of  the  Virgin  Birth.” 


238 


Jesus’  Idea 


sion.  However,  from  whatever  source  the  Evangelist’s  in¬ 
formation  was  derived,  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  the 
attendant  circumstances  bear  the  stamp  of  intrinsic  probability, 
while  the  very  sobriety  of  the  narrative  convinces  of  its  truth¬ 
fulness.  The  Virgin  Birth  is  certainly  in  harmony  with 
the  general  conception  of  Jesus  as  we  find  it  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  (See,  for  instance,  St.  Jn.  3:31  ;  I  Cor.  15:47.)  Every¬ 
thing,  indeed,  seems  to  lead  to  the  idea  of  “the  Word  made 
flesh.”  And  if  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  is  it  not  antecedently 
probable  that  the  Holy  Ghost  (of  course,  in  the  Old  Testament 
signification  of  the  term — “God  exerting  power”)  would  over¬ 
shadow  a  Virgin,  and  become  the  agent  in  the  conception?  It  is, 
indeed,  somewhat  difficult  to  see  how  the  Word  could  have 
become  flesh  in  a  person  born  of  human  father  and  mother. 
If,  however,  God,  for  His  own  wise  purposes,  wished  to  enter 
into  humanity,  and  to  take,  as  it  were,  humanity  into  himself, 
the  Virgin  Birth  commends  itself  as  the  reasonable  expedient, 
as  we  shall  see.  Aptly  then  does  Professor  Stanton  remark: 
“The  chief  ground  on  which  thoughtful  Christian  believers  are 
ready  to  accept  it  (the  miraculous  birth)  is  that,  believing  in  the 
personal  indissoluble  union  between  God  and  man  in  Jesus 
Christ,  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  seems  to  them  the  only 
fitting  accompaniment  of  this  union,  and,  so  to  speak,  the  natural 
expression  of  it  in  the  outward  order  of  facts.”  (“The  Jewish 
and  the  Christian  Messiah,”  p.  3 76H. ) 1 

The  circumstances  attending  this  extraordinary  event,  too, 
betray  an  eminent  sense  of  the  fitness  of  things.  If  a  celestial 
Being  was  to  enter  into  humanity,  what  could  be  more  likely 
than  remarkable  attendant  phenomena,  even  though  the  Being 
had  elected  to  live  a  life  of  lowliness?  Further,  the  person¬ 
ages  concerned  in  these  phenomena  are  of  the  sort  we  should 
expect:  not  the  great  of  earth,  nor  those  in  the  eye  of  the 
public,  but  those  who  in  modesty  and  obscurity  live  for  the 
inner,  not  for  the  outer  life.  The  events  themselves,  also, 
harmonize  with  their  purported  cause.  An  “outburst  of  proph¬ 
ecy”  was  indeed  most  seemly  (St.  Lu.  1:15,  80,  41:67). 
That  Jew  and  Gentile,  Heaven  and  Earth,  should  be  intimately 
concerned  in  the  birth  of  the  Savior  of  the  World  is  not 

1  See  Appendix  M,  “Some  Explanations  of  the  Story  of  the  Virgin 
Birth.” 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


239 


surprising.  Every  feature  of  the  story,  in  fact,  bears  the  stamp 
of  unique  genius.  How  beautiful,  for  instance,  is  the  incident 
of  the  angel’s  speaking  to  the  shepherds  who  watched  their 
flocks  by  night,  reminding  us  of  the  fact  that  celestial  voices 
are  only  heard  by  those  who  are  near  to  nature’s  heart.  How 
prophetic,  too,  was  the  visit  of  the  Wise  Men,  the  first-fruits  of 
the  great  Gentile  world,  which  was  as  sorely  in  need  of  the 
Messiah  as  the  Jewish  and  which  was  to  lay  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus  so  much  that  was  priceless!  In  these  events,  again,  we 
find  that  sense  of  congruity,  which  has  impressed  us  more  than 
once,  and  which  reveals  them  as  the  outcome  of  Divine  Logic, 
not  of  human  reasoning,  or  poetic  allegorizing.  Even  those 
who  reject  the  Virgin  Birth  cannot  escape  its  fascination.  We 
quote  from  Wilhelm  Soltau,  who  denies  the  fact:  “Even  if  there 
are  some  who  cannot  suppress  certain  doubts  with  regard  to 
this  dogma,  yet  the  very  same  persons  will,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
seldom  be  able  to  resist  the  fascination  exercised  by  the  delightful 
legends  of  Jesus’  childhood,  which  form  the  basis  of  these 
postulates  of  the  creed — a  fascination  felt  by  every  one  who 
is  still  able  to  appreciate  child-like  piety  and  a  popular  form 
of  poetry.  The  manger  of  Bethlehem,  notwithstanding  its  poor 
surroundings,  has  always  been  the  most  charming  feature  in 
the  whole  of  the  Christmas  episode.  The  shining  star,  the 
adoring  Magi,  the  startled  shepherds,  and,  above  all,  the  angel 
host  chanting  its  song  of  praise — what  is  there  that  can  be  com¬ 
pared  with  this  in  the  religious  literature  of  any  other  people? 
And,  to  turn  merely  to  the  mystery  surrounding  the  early  his¬ 
tory  (Luke  1:5-80).  Never  has  the  Deity  seemed  to  draw 
so  close  to  man  as  He  did  on  this  occasion.”  (“The  Birth  of 
Jesus  Christ,”  p.  4.)  A  similar  feeling  of  respect  for  the  story 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  evident  also  in  Lobstein’s  “The  Virgin 
Birth  of  Christ.” 

That  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  true,  we  fully  believe. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  fact  is  so  mysterious  that  it  arouses  distrust, 
we  answer  that  Christianity  is  only  the  supreme  mystery  in  a 
world  that  is  full  of  mysteries.  Man  himself  is  a  mystery 
of  the  first  magnitude.  Familiarity  breeds  contempt,  and 
long  familiarity  with  the  ordinary  processes  of  nature  has 
blinded  the  average  man  to  the  abounding  mysteries  of  the 
natural  world.  Were  the  eyes  open,  it  would  be  seen  that  all 


240 


Jesus’  Idea 


is  supernal.  The  demand,  however,  which  belief  in  the 
Virgin  Birth  makes  upon  human  credulity  is  not  one  whit 
greater  than  that  which  the  evolutionist  makes  when  he  de¬ 
mands  our  assent  to  the  proposition  that  “in  that  little  speck 
of  jelly  at  the  first  dawn  of  life — there  lies  wrapped  up,  only 
waiting  for  development,  the  promise  and  potency  of  the 
whole  subsequent  evolution  of  life.”  Again,  the  question  of 
the  Virgin  Birth,  like  the  question  of  Evolution — borrowing 
once  more  the  phraseology  of  Professor  Orr — “is  not  one  to 
be  settled  a  priori ,  but  to  be  brought  to  the  test  of  facts.” 
(“The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World,”  p.  251.) 
That  it  will  stand  the  test  of  closest  scrutiny,  we  are  confident. 

The  subject,  however,  is  fraught  with  difficulties.  That  the 
normal  laws  of  human  generation  should  be  set  aside  at  all 
seems  incredible,  if  not  impossible.  Here,  however,  the  physio¬ 
logical  fact  of  Parthenogenesis  is  suggestive.  This  word  is  de¬ 
rived  from  parthenos ,  a  virgin,  and  genesis,  production,  and 
means  “the  production  of  young  in  some  species  of  plants  and 
inferior  animals,  without  previous  intercourse  with  the  male.” 
We  are  told  that  this  fact  is  widespread  in  the  lower  orders 
of  nature,  while  it  occurs  in  other  orders  “occasionally  and 
sporadically.”  The  testimony  of  Professor  G.  J.  Romanes, 
given  while  he  was  a  reverent  agnostic,  is  worthy  of  our  notice. 
He  says:  “It  has  been  already  stated  that  both  parthenogenesis 
and  gemmation  are  ultimately  derived  from  sexual  reproduction. 
It  may  now  be  added,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  earlier  stages 
of  parthenogenesis  have  been  observed  to  occur  sporadically 
in  all  sub-kingdoms  of  the  Metazoa,  including  the  Vertebrata, 
and  even  the  highest  class,  the  Mammalia.  These  earlier  stages 
consist  in  spontaneous  segmentations  of  the  ovum;  so  that  even 
if  a  virgin  has  ever  conceived  and  borne  a  son,  and  even  if 
such  a  fact  in  the  human  species  has  been  Unique,  still  it  would 
not  betoken  any  breach  of  physiological  continuity  ."  (“Darwin 
and  After  Darwin,”  p.  119).1 

1  Apart,  however,  from  this  interesting  illustration  furnished  by 
parthenogenesis,  a  devout  mind  would  encounter  no  difficulty  in 
believing  in  a  Virgin  Birth  in  view  of  the  power  of  God — all  things 
are  possible  to  Him — provided  there  was  a  sufficient  reason  for 
such  a  departure  from  the  usual  laws  of  generation.  The  question 
then  becomes,  in  its  last  analysis,  What  is  the  rationality  of  the 
Virgin  Birth? 


241 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 

The  Christian  idea  is  that  in  Jesus  Christ  a  Divine  Being 
became  Incarnate.  Now  if  a  Divine  Being  was  to  become 
Man,  why  was  the  method  of  a  Virgin  Birth  chosen  ?  A 
Virgin  Birth  is  certainly  not  essential  apparently  to  an  In¬ 
carnation.  The  mystery  surrounding  the  genesis  of  every 
human  soul,  and  the  ancient  belief  in  the  preexistence  of  all 
souls  seem  to  preclude  a  Virgin  Birth  as  essential  to  an  In¬ 
carnation.  Many  persons,  in  fact,  claim  that  an  Incarnation 
without  a  Virgin  Birth  would  be  more  real  and  more  in¬ 
telligible;  that  it  would  not  lower  the  idea  of  Divinity  to  a 
physical  basis;  that  it  would  not  endanger  the  reality  of  the 
being’s  humanity;  and  that  it  would  not  create  an  unnecessary 
distinction  between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  In  spite 
of  this,  however,  certain  reasons  do  seem  to  commend  the 
method  of  a  Virgin  Birth.  But  before  noting  these  briefly, 
let  us  advert  to  a  reason  sometimes  adduced,  but  which  appears 
to  be  but  a  broken  reed  upon  which  to  lean. 

It  is  said  that  the  Virgin  Birth  was  the  necessary  condition 
of  Jesus’  sinlessness  (either  positive  or  negative),  or  freedom 
from  original  sin.  This  claim,  however,  is  utterly  unconvincing, 
because  the  taint  of  evil — whatever  it  may  be — could  descend 
through  the  mother  as  well  as  through  the  father.  In  fact, 
among  the  Jews,  woman  was  regarded  as  particularly  weak  and 
sinful  (Gen.  3;  Eccl.  7;  I  Tim.  2:14).  Our  escape  from  this 
possibility,  indeed,  lies  either  in  the  adoption  of  the  Docetic  idea, 
that  Jesus  was  born  not,  ek ,  “from”  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  only, 
diet,  “through”  her,  or  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  which  would  give  us  an  immaculate 
mother,  or  the  idea  that  the  removal  of  the  human  father  would 
remove  all  impure  thought  and  desire,  and  with  it,  the  sinful 
taint,  which,  according  to  this  theory  apparently,  enters  with 
the  act  of  generation.  Thus  a  slur  is  cast  upon  the  divinely 
appointed  method  of  procreation.  Again  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
words  of  the  angel:  “therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall 
be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God”  (St.  Lu.  1 135) 
are  to  be  interpreted  in  an  ethical  sense.  The  idea  is  simply 
that  the  child  being  conceived  by  the  power  of  God  is  therefore 
especially  consecrated  and  set  apart  to  God. 

While  this  reason  then  for  the  Virgin  Birth  is  uncon- 


242 


Jesus’  Idea 


vincing,  other  thoughts  are  more  helpful.  For  instance,  the  fact 
of  being  begotten  by  a  human  father  and  a  human  mother  sug¬ 
gests  a  new  personality.  Jesus,  however,  preexisted.  Conse¬ 
quently  the  thought  of  an  Incarnation  in  a  person  born  of  human 
father  and  mother,  while  it  does  not  render  belief  in  an  In¬ 
carnation  impossible,  at  least  increases  our  difficulty  in  believing 
in  the  fact.  Again,  Jesus  inaugurated  a  new  course  for  hu¬ 
manity.  He  was,  indeed,  the  Second  Adam,  the  founder  of  a 
new  divine-human  race.  Hence  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that 
such  a  dignity  might  demand  a  physical  miracle  as  its  fitting 
counterpart.  Sometimes  there  is  also  associated  with  this  con¬ 
ception  the  idea  that  if  Jesus  had  been  born  of  human  parentage, 
He  would  have  inherited  what  we  might  call  partial  humanity — 
not  human  nature  in  its  entirety  or  totality,  which  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  for  Him  to  have  in  view  of  His  dignity  and  His  task.  The 
perplexing  question,  however,  is,  How  would  He  receive  human 
nature  in  its  totality  from  Mary?  Finally,  Jesus  was  the 
God-Man.  Two  natures  were  apparently  united  in  one  person. 
Jesus  was  certainly  human,  and  yet  He  was  palpably  more 
than  human :  He  was  Divine.  How  this  could  be  is  an  insoluble 
mystery.  The  Virgin  Birth,  however,  helps  us  to  grasp  the  fact 
more  readily  than  the  idea  of  the  union  of  two  natures  in  a 
man  born  of  human  father  and  human  mother.  (The  line  of 
thought  here  touched  upon  is  presented  by  E.  Griffith-Jones 
in  “The  Ascent  Through  Christ,”  pp.  263-270.) 

In  conclusion,  we  notice  again  in  the  matter  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  the  sense  of  congruity  which  has  characterized  the  other 
supernatural  features  of  Christianity.  At  the  same  time,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  Virgin  Birth  does  not  seem  as  essential 
to  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  the  several  other  supernatural  fea¬ 
tures  which  have  been  noted.  Christianity  would  not  be  very 
seriously  impaired  for  thoughtful  minds,  even  if  this  supposed 
fact  should  be  disproved.  Indeed,  however  the  orthodox 
Christian  Creed  may  be  established  in  this  and  in  other  particu¬ 
lars,  we  must  remember  that  those  who  cannot  accept  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  or  His  metaphysical  Sonship,  but  who 
accept  Jesus  as  the  Sovereign  of  Life — as  the  Son  of  God  in  the 
official  and  in  the  ethical  senses — and  strive  to  do  the  Master’s 
will,  are  subjects  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  are  to  be  admitted 


The  Vicegerent  of  the  Kingdom 


243 


within  the  pale  of  Jesus’  ecclesia.1 

In  failing  to  see  this,  the  visible  Church  has  made  a  fatal 
mistake,  for  the  Cause  of  Christianity  is  the  Kingdom  or 
Sovereignty  of  God — not  primarily  the  Deity  of  Jesus.  Satan, 
however,  is  an  adept  in  the  game  of  substitution — the  outer 
for  the  inner,  the  appearance  for  the  reality,  faith  as  an  in¬ 
tellectual  virtue  instead  of  an  ethical  practise,  the  traditions  of 
men  in  place  of  the  Commandments  of  God — and  he  has  played 
it  long  and  well  even  within  the  sphere  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  Satanic  fallacy,  however,  is  becoming  more  and  more  ap¬ 
parent  as  the  Spirit  of  Truth  is  disclosing  the  idea  and  the 
ambition  of  Jesus  to  the  World.  Men  are  seeing  as  never  be¬ 
fore  that  the  essence  of  Christianity  is  devotion  to  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  not  the  acceptance  of  a  Church  or  a  Creed.  May 
God  speed  the  day  when  the  voice  of  Jesus  Himself  shall  be 
heard  above  the  din  of  ecclesiastical  pronunciamentos — however 
true  or  however  false  they  may  be — and  His  sheep  shall  hear 
His  voice,  and  there  shall  be  one  Fold  and  one  Shepherd — 
substantial  unity  amid  great  diversity — a  true  Catholicity  in  the 
Idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

1  That  this  generous  liberty  was  accorded  at  one  time  is  evident 
from  Justin  Martyr’s  admission  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho.  Ch. 
48:1,  219:  “Now  assuredly,  Trypho,  I  continued,  that  this  man  is 
the  Christ  of  God  does  not  fail,  though  I  be  unable  to  prove  that 
he  existed  formerly  as  Son  of  the  Maker  of  all  things,  being  God 
and  was  born  by  the  Virgin.  But  since  I  have  certainly  proved 
that  this  man  is  the  Christ  of  God,  whoever  he  be,  even  if  I  do 
not  prove  that  he  preexisted,  and  submitted  to  be  born  a  man  of 
like  passions  with  us,  having  a  body  according  to  the  Father’s  will; 
in  this  matter  alone  it  is  just  to  say  that  I  have  erred,  and  not 
to  deny  that  he  is  the  Christ,  though  it  should  appear  that  he  was 
born  man  of  man,  and  it  is  proved  that  he  became  Christ  by 
election.  For  there  are  some,  my  friends,  I  said,  of  our  race,  who 
admit  that  he  is  Christ,  while  holding  him  to  be  man  of  men ;  with 
whom  I  do  not  agree,  nor  would  I,  even  though  most  of  those  who 
have  the  same  opinion  as  myself  should  say  so ;  since  we  were 
enjoined  by  Christ  himself  to  put  no  faith  in  human  doctrines,  but 
those  proclaimed  by  the  blessed  prophets  and  taught  by  himself.” 


APPENDIX  A 


THE  THEME  OF  JESUS’  PREACHING 

“The  Kingdom  of  Heaven”  or  “The  Kingdom  of  God,” 
was  the  theme  of  Jesus’  preaching  and  teaching.  It  was  with 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  that  Jesus  began  His 
public  ministry  (St.  Mark  1:14);  it  was  with  instruction  in 
the  things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  that  He  was 
busied  during  the  forty  days  which  intervened  between  the 
Resurrection  and  the  Ascension  (Acts  1:3);  and  it  was  with 
the  command  that  His  apostles  go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  that  Jesus  vanished  into  the 
Heavens  (St.  Matthew  28:19-20;  St.  Mark  16:15).  The 
Kingdom,  indeed,  was  the  beginning,  the  middle  and  the  end 
of  Jesus’  preaching. 

To  render  this  assertion  indisputable,  let  us  cite  proof 
from  the  Gospels.  “Jesus  came  into  Galilee  preaching  the 
Gospel  (good  news)  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  saying, 
The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand ;  re¬ 
pent  ye,  and  believe  the  Gospel”  (St.  Mark  1  :i4,  15).  “From 
that  time  Jesus  began  to  preach,  and  to  say,  Repent;  for 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand”  (St.  Matthew  4:17). 
“And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  in  their  synagogues, 
and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and  healing  all 
manner  of  sickness,  and  all  manner  of  disease  among  the 
people”  (St.  Matthew  4:23;  9:35).  “And  He  said  unto  them, 
I  must  preach  the  Kingdom  of  God  to  other  cities  also;  for 
therefore  am  I  sent.  And  He  preached  in  the  synagogues  of 
Galilee”  (St.  Luke  4:43,  44).  “And  it  came  to  pass  after¬ 
ward,  that  He  went  throughout  every  city  and  village,  preach¬ 
ing  and  showing  the  glad  tidings  of  the  Kingdom  of  God :  and 
the  twelve  were  with  Him”  (St.  Luke  8:1 ;  St.  Mark  1 138,  39). 

Not  only  was  the  Kingdom  the  burden  of  Jesus’  preaching:  it 
was  also  the  very  essence  of  His  commission  to  the  Twelve. 

245 


246 


Jesus'  Idea 


“Then  he  called  his  twelve  disciples  together,  and  gave 
them  power  and  authority  over  all  devils,  and  to  cure  diseases. 
And  he  sent  them  to  preach  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  to  heal 
the  sick.”  “And  they  departed,  and  went  through  the  towns, 
preaching  the  gospel,  and  healing  everywhere.  And  the  people 
when  they  knew  it  followed  Him;  and  He  received  them,  and 
spake  unto  them  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  healed  them 
that  had  need  of  healing.”  “Jesus  said  unto  Him,  Let  the 
dead  bury  their  dead,  but  go  thou  and  preach  the  Kingdom 
of  God:  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  no  man,  having  put  his  hand 
to  the  plow  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  Kingdom  of  God” 
(St.  Luke  9:1,  6,  11,  60,  62;  St.  Mark  6:6,  7,  8).  “These 
twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded  them,  saying,  Go 
not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samari¬ 
tans  enter  ye  not:  But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying,  The  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand”  (St.  Matthew  10:5,  7).  Virtually  the  same  com¬ 
mission  was  given  subsequently  to  the  Seventy:  “After  these 
things  the  Lord  appointed  other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them 
two  by  two  before  His  face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither 
he  himself  would  come.”  “And  heal  the  sick  that  are  therein, 
and  say  unto  them,  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto 
you.”  “Even  the  very  dust  of  your  city,  which  cleaveth  on  us, 
we  do  wipe  off  against  you :  notwithstanding,  be  ye  sure  of  this, 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you”  (St.  Luke 
10:1,  9,  11).  Jesus  also  declares:  “And  this  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a  witness  unto  all 
nations;  and  then  shall  the  end  come”  (St.  Matthew  24:14). 

The  familiar  and  very  precious  intercourse  of  the  Master 
with  the  disciples  on  the  eve  of  the  Crucifixion,  also  reveals 
the  conception  which  was  uppermost  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  al¬ 
ways,  and  ever  dearest  to  His  heart:  “And  I  appoint  unto  you  a 
kingdom,  as  my  Father  has  appointed  unto  me;  that  ye  may 
eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel”  (St.  Luke  22:29,  30). 

That  the  Apostles,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  regarded  “the 
Kingdom  of  God”  as  the  comprehensive  and  fundamental  feature 
of  their  Lord’s  teaching,  is  evident  in  their  preaching.  A  few 
quotations  from  “The  Acts  of  the  Apostles”  will  suffice  to 
indicate  this.  “But  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 


Appendix 


247 


things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women”  (Acts  8:12). 
“And  he  (Paul)  went  into  the  synagogue,  and  spake  boldly 
for  the  space  of  three  months,  disputing  and  persuading  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God”  (Acts  19:8).  “And 
now,  behold,  I  know  that  ye  all,  among  whom  I  have  gone 
preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  shall  see  my  face  no  more” 
(Acts  20:25).  “And  when  they  had  appointed  him  a  day, 
there  came  many  to  him  unto  his  lodgings;  to  whom  he  ex¬ 
pounded  and  testified  the  kingdom  of  God,  persuading  them 
concerning  Jesus,  both  out  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  out  of  the 
prophets,  from  morning  till  evening.”  “And  Paul  dwelt  two 
whole  years  in  his  hired  house,  and  received  all  that  came  in 
unto  him,  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those 
things  which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all  confidence, 
no  man  forbidding  him”  (Acts  28:23,  31).  This  emphatic 
testimony  of  the  Book  of  Acts  of  the  Apostles  attests  that  the 
subject  of  the  Apostolic  preaching  is  in  line  with  the  state¬ 
ment  of  the  third  verse  of  the  First  Chapter  of  the  Book, 
which  reads:  “To  whom  also  he  showed  himself  alive  after 
his  passion  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  them  forty 
days,  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of 
God.”  We  could  anticipate  no  other  course  of  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Apostles  after  Jesus  had  so  emphasized  the  King¬ 
dom  at  all  times  during  His  life,  and  had  made  it  the  preeminent 
topic  of  conversation  during  the  great  Forty  Days. 

We  think  that  these  abundant  citations  from  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  will  convince  the  unprejudiced  reader  that  the  important 
and  absorbing  topic  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  “The  Kingdom 
of  God.”  However  this  theme  may  be  in  the  background  of 
a  present-day  preaching,  it  was  undeniably  in  the  very  fore¬ 
ground  of  Jesus’  preaching. 


APPENDIX  B 


THE  PHRASES,  “KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN”  AND  “KINGDOM  OF  GOD” 

In  the  New  Testament,  two  expressions  were  used,  appar¬ 
ently  with  no  distinction  between  them — “The  Kingdom  of 
Heaven”  and  “The  Kingdom  of  God.”  These  expressions, 
while  they  differ  in  form,  are  equivalent  in  meaning.  The 
phrase — “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven” — is  peculiar  to  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew,  in  which  it  is  used  thirty-two  times.  “The 
Kingdom  of  God”  is  the  form  alone  used  in  the  Gospels  ac¬ 
cording  to  St.  Luke,  St.  Mark  and  St.  John;  although  it  is 
also  used  interchangeably  by  St.  Matthew  in  five  passages,  at 
least — 6:iO,  33;  12:28;  21:31,  43.  The  term,  “The  Kingdom 
of  God,”  is  found  fifteen  times  in  St.  Mark’s  Gospel;  thirty 
times  in  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  twice  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  St.  John,  and  seven  times  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles.  Twice  in  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel  occurs  the 
expression  “The  Kingdom  of  the  Father”  (St.  Matthew  13:43; 
26:29).  Jesus  also  speaks  of  “My  Kingdom”  three  times  (St. 
John  18:36). 

It  is  considered  highly  probable  that  “The  Kingdom  of 
God”  was  a  current  expression  among  the  Jews  of  Our  Lord’s 
time,  because  of  the  very  prevalence  and  the  great  popu¬ 
larity  of  the  conception  which  it  embodied.  Certain  New 
Testament  passages  seem  to  imply  its  common  use  in  the  speech 
of  the  people.  For  example,  St.  Mark  15:43  reads:  “Joseph 
of  Arimathea,  an  honorable  counselor,  which  also  waited 
for  the  Kingdom  of  God ,  came,  and  went  boldly  unto  Pilate, 
and  craved  the  body  of  Jesus.”  “And  as  they  heard  these  things, 
he  added  and  spake  a  parable,  because  he  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem, 
and  because  they  thought  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  should 
immediately  appear  ”  It  may  be  also,  that  in  the  question  of 
the  Apostles,  recorded  in  Acts  1 :6 — “Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this 
time  restore  again  the  Kingdom  to  Israel?” — we  have  an  indi- 

248 


Appendix 


249 


cation  of  the  popular  usage.  St.  Luke  14:15  is  significant, 
too: — “And  when  one  of  them  that  sat  at  meat  with  him  heard 
these  things,  he  said  unto  him,  Blessed  is  he  that  shall  eat  bread 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.”  Then  again,  there  was  in  common 
use  a  prayer  called  the  “Kaddish.”  This  prayer  was  written  in 
Aramaic,  and  dates  far  back  into  antiquity.  The  concluding 
petition  is:  “And  may  He  (God)  set  up  His  Kingdom  in  your 
life-time,  and  in  your  days,  and  in  the  life-time  of  the  whole 
house  of  Israel,  (yea)  speedily,  and  in  a  time  that  is  near.” 

The  phrase,  “Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  was  also  a  common 
expression  in  Rabbinical  circles.  It  occurs  repeatedly  in  the 
Talmud,  and  is  thought  by  some  to  have  been  the  form  em¬ 
ployed  by  Our  Lord  in  His  ordinary  preaching,  but  not  exclu¬ 
sively  so,  and  to  have  been  retained  by  St.  Matthew  in  His  Gos¬ 
pel,  addressed,  as  it  was,  primarily  to  Jewish  readers.  While 
it  was  translated  into  the  equivalent  expression,  “The  Kingdom 
of  God,”  by  St.  Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John,  because  they 
deemed  that  expression  best  suited  to  the  understanding  of  the 
Gentile  readers.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  phrase,  “The 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  was  a  specifically  Jewish  one,  and  that 
it  was  not  so  easily  intelligible  to  the  Gentile  world  as  the  kin¬ 
dred  expression,  “The  Kingdom  of  God.”  Besides,  the  way  had 
been  prepared  for  such  a  usage  as  that  of  St.  Mark,  St.  Luke, 
and  St.  John,  in  the  example  of  the  Greek  Bible,  or  Septuagint, 
which  was  preeminently  the  Bible  of  the  Gentile  nations,  and 
which  nowhere  speaks  of  “The  Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  but  every¬ 
where  and  only  of  “The  Kingdom  of  God.”  It  is  also  an  as¬ 
sured  fact  that  “heaven”  was  a  common  metonymy  for  “God” 
in  the  language  of  the  Jewish  people.  For  confirmation  of  the 
use  of  the  term  “heaven”  in  place  of  the  word  “God,”  the  read¬ 
er  may  consult  a  number  of  New  Testament  passages,  notably 
St.  Mark  10:21;  St.  Luke  10:20;  12:33.  This  fact  leads  us 
to  believe  it  quite  probable  that  both  forms  were  used  by  Our 
Lord  Himself;  while  it  relieves  St.  Matthew  of  any  inexplicable 
singularity  in  his  constant  use  of  the  phrase,  “The  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.” 


APPENDIX  C 


VARIOUS  DEFINITIONS  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

Various  definitions  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  have  been  giv¬ 
en,  and  it  may  be  well  to  enumerate  some  of  the  more  recent 
ones.  To  the  Jew,  the  Kingdom  of  God  corresponded  to  the 
well-known  phrase,  malekoth  hasshamayim ,  which  was  used 
generally,  as  Meyer  tells  us,  in  the  sense  of  the  ethical  rule  of 
God,  and  “also  in  the  essentially  historical  meaning  of  the  rule 
of  God,  brought  to  its  consummation  by  the  Messiah.”  To  the 
Jew,  the  phrase  signified  always — the  Kingdom  of  the  Messiah. 
Modern  students,  however,  have  defined  it  variously.  Eder- 
sheim  writes:  “An  analysis  of  119  passages  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  where  the  expression  ‘Kingdom’  occurs,  shows  that  it 
means  the  rule  of  God,  which  was  manifested  in  and  through 
Christ ;  is  apparent  in  the  Church ;  gradually  develops  amidst 
hindrances;  is  triumphant  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ  (the 
end)  ;  and,  finally,  perfected  in  the  world  to  come.”  Dr.  Horton 
gives  the  following  definition,  which  is  endorsed  also  by  Dr. 
Sanday :  “The  world  of  invisible  laws  by  which  God  is  ruling 
and  blessing  His  creatures.”  The  late  Professor  Stevens  says: 
“The  Kingdom  of  God  is  the  rule  of  God  in  human  hearts  and 
lives:  it  is  so  much  of  the  world  of  human  thought  and  action 
as  makes  the  will  of  God  its  laws”  (“The  Teaching  of  Jesus/’ 
p.  69).  Professor  Bruce  has  it:  “The  reign  of  divine  love 
exercised  by  God  in  His  grace  over  human  hearts  believing 
in  H  is  love,  and  constrained  thereby  to  yield  Him  grateful 
affection  and  devoted  service”  (“The  Kingdom  of  God,”  p.  46). 

Dr.  Horton  writes:  “The  idea  is  very  simple,  but  every¬ 
thing  is  involved  in  it.  The  sincere  and  practical  recognition 
that  God  is  sovereign,  the  complete  inward  acceptance  of  His 
sovereignty,  the  whole  of  life  which  results  from  this  recogni¬ 
tion  and  this  acceptance — that  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven” 
(“Teaching  of  Jesus,”  p.  35).  By  Professor  Matthews,  the 

250 


Appendix 


251 


Kingdom  is  thus  defined :  “By  the  Kingdom  of  God,  Jesus 
meant  an  ideal  (though  progressively  approximated)  social  or¬ 
der,  in  which  the  relation  of  men  to  God  is  that  of  sons,  and, 
therefore,  to  each  other,  that  of  brothers”  (“The  Social  Teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus,”  p.  54).  Professor  Wendt  puts  the  matter  con¬ 
cisely:  “The  idea  of  a  divine  dispensation  under  which  God 
would  bestow  His  full  salvation  upon  a  society  of  men,  who, 
on  their  part,  should  fulfil  His  will  in  true  righteousness” 
(“Teaching  of  Jesus,”  Vol.  I,  p.  175).  Harnack,  probably  the 
most  brilliant  of  living  theological  students,  writes:  “True,  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  the  rule  of  God,  but  it  is  the  rule  of  the 
holy  God  in  the  hearts  of  individuals:  it  is  God  Himself  in  His 
power”  (“What  is  Christianity?”  p.  56).  Professor  Dalman 
says,  in  speaking  of  Jesus’  idea  of  the  Kingdom:  “For  Him 
the  sovereignty  of  God  meant  the  divine  power,  which  from 
the  present  onwards  with  continuous  progress,  effectuates  the 
renovation  of  the  world,  but  also  the  renovated  world  into 
whose  domain  mankind  will  one  day  enter,  which  is  even  now 
being  offered,  and,  therefore,  can  be  appropriated  and  received 
as  a  blessing”  (“The  Words  of  Jesus,”  p.  137). 

All  of  these  definitions  are  interesting,  and,  while  they  seem 
to  differ  widely  upon  a  cursory  reading,  all  are  found  to  con¬ 
verge  to  one  point,  and  to  emphasize  obedience  and  submission 
to  the  rule  or  authority  of  God. 


APPENDIX  D 


THE  INSTITUTION  OF  THE  MONARCHY 

In  our  interpretation  of  the  institution  of  the  Monarchy, 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  in  the  First  Book  of  Samuel,  as  in 
the  earlier  Books  of  the  Bible,  “two  distinct  strands  of  narra¬ 
tive  are  woven  together,”  the  one,  older  and  historically  more 
valuable;  the  other,  later  and  colored  by  the  prophetical  spirit. 
According  to  the  earlier  narrative,  the  distinct  achievement  of 
the  seer,  Samuel,  was  the  selection  and  anointing  of  the  king, 
while  the  later  account  represents  him  as  resentful  of  Israels’ 
request,  and  the  bitter  opponent  of  her  desire.  It  has  been  sig¬ 
nificantly  remarked  that,  “The  language  in  which  he  condemns 
it  (the  request),  Ch.  8 ,  is  almost  a  literal  description  of  the 
abuses  of  the  royal  prerogative  under  such  kings  as  Solomon  and 
Ahab.”  This  narrative  points  to  a  time  when  the  kingship, 
in  view  of  its  oppression  and  unrighteousness,  had  become  thor¬ 
oughly  odious  to  the  prophets,  while  their  minds  were  full  of 
the  vision  of  the  ideal  theocracy,  or  Kingdom  of  God.  Hence, 
the  step  taken  in  the  age  of  Samuel,  seemed  to  them  a  sad 
misstep.  In  reality,  it  was  a  great  and  essential  step  forward 
in  the  developing  plan  of  God.  To  hold  that  the  asking  for 
a  king,  a  request  necessary  in  the  logical  order  of  events,  and 
undoubtedly  making  for  the  betterment  of  the  nation,  is  a  back¬ 
ward  step,  a  retrogression  or  lapse,  is  to  be  guilty  of  a  “fla¬ 
grant  reversal  of  history.”  To  identify  the  “theocracy”  with 
the  period  prior  to  the  Monarchy,  narrows  the  term  in  a  lament¬ 
able  way.  A  far  truer  view  of  the  theocracy  interprets  it  as  a 
spiritual  idea,  independent  in  its  expression  or  embodiment  of 
any  specific  or  stereotyped  form  of  any  age,  and  condition,  or 
any  civilization.  The  theocracy,  or  rule  of  God,  was  the  theoc¬ 
racy,  whether  under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  or  the  Judges, 
or  the  King  of  the  Monarchical  era,  or  the  Priests  of  the  Post 
Exilic  period.  To  have  gotten  rid  of  God  as  King  would  have 
been  disloyalty;  simply  to  change  the  manner  of  God’s  rule  as 
King  involved  no  disloyalty. 


252 


APPENDIX  E 


THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

The  Book  of  Daniel  is  an  Apocalypse:  the  first  well-de¬ 
veloped  fruit  of  Apocalyptic  Literature.  The  object  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  to  uncover,  or  to  lay  open  what  has  been  veiled 
or  covered  up ;  such,  indeed,  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Apoc¬ 
alyptic  Literature  was  busied  with  a  question  of  great  im¬ 
portance.  It  was  a  firm  conviction  of  the  Jewish  mind  that, 

inasmuch  as  God  was  a  righteous  God,  He  would  unfailingly 
bestow  temporal  blessings  and  prosperity  upon  His  servants  on 
the  earth.  This  seemed  to  be  an  emphatic  teaching  of  the 

Law,  and  it  had  been  the  burden  of  many  prophetic  utter¬ 

ances.  Precept,  however,  did  not  always  accord  with  practise. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  experiences  of  life  offered  a  painful, 
but  undeniable,  contradiction  to  their  cherished  belief.  Diffi¬ 
culties  arose,  and  the  actual  demanded  an  apologist.  Especially 
was  this  the  case  after  the  Exile.  At  no  time  had  the  law  been 
more  thoroughly  expounded,  at  no  time  were  the  people  more 
true  to  their  monotheistic  faith,  and  more  resolute  in  their 
antagonism  to  the  heathen;  yet  prosperity  did  not  come.  In 
consequence,  serious  questioning  arose.  How  could  the  difficulty 
be  resolved?  And  this  questioning  related  not  only  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole,  but  also  to  the  individuals  of  whom  the 
nation  was  composed.  The  earlier  Old  Testament  prophecy 
had  portrayed  the  vindication  and  restoration  of  Israel  as  a 
nation;  but  the  later  years  of  the  national  life  found  the  claims 
of  the  individual  hovering  large  upon  the  horizon,  and  pressing 
for  earnest  consideration.  Some  scheme  of  the  Divine  opera¬ 
tion  must  be  found  which  would  take  due  account  of  these 
claims  of  the  individual.  Hence,  in  addition  to  the  idea  of  the 
national  restoration  of  Israel,  there  arose  the  idea  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  righteous  individual.  Thus  the  task  of  Apoc¬ 
alyptic  Literature  was  to  disclose  what  had  been  hidden 

253 


254 


Jesus9  Idea 


from  man,  and  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men.  “Apocalyp¬ 
tic  Literature,  therefore,  strove  to  show  that,  in  respect  alike 
of  the  nation  and  of  the  individual,  the  righteousness  of  God 
would  be  fully  vindicated;  and,  in  order  to  justify  its  contention, 
it  sketched  in  outline  the  history  of  the  world,  and  of  mankind, 
the  origin  of  evil,  and  its  course,  and  the  final  consummation  of 
all  things,  and  thus,  in  fact,  it  presented  a  Semitic  philosophy 
of  religion.”  The  answer  of  this  literature  to  Israel’s  grave 
questioning,  was:  The  righteous  nation  will  yet  possess  the 
earth  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  and  the  righteous  individual, 
though  dead,  will  receive  the  award  of  his  good  works  in  the 
resurrection  to  honor  and  happiness,  either  in  the  earthly  or 
the  heavenly  kingdom  of  the  Messiah. 

For  his  efficacy,  the  Apocalyptist — unlike  the  early  prophet 
who  trusted  to  the  spoken  word — placed  his  faith  in  the  writ¬ 
ten  form.  And  while  the  prophet  speaks  chiefly  to  his  own  age, 
and  deals  with  the  future  only  as  it  had  its  roots  in  the  present, 
seeking  to  arouse  his  countrymen  to  action,  the  Apocalyptist 
is  a  profound  pessimist  so  far  as  the  present  is  concerned,  looks 
upon  present  conditions  as  irretrievably  bad,  and  has  faith  only 
in  the  future.  Perhaps,  because  of  this,  and  certainly  to  gain 
an  increased  authority  for  his  writings,  he  does  not  write  in 
his  own  name,  but  assumes  a  false  name,  the  name  of  some  one 
of  Israel’s  many  ancient  worthies.  He  strives  to  write  as 
though  he  lived  in  his  day,  and  combining  events  of  the  past 
with  events  of  the  present,  depicts  an  onward  movement  of  his¬ 
tory  which  issues  in  the  exaltation  of  Israel.  To  his  own 
time,  he  prophesies  usually  with  precision;  beyond  his  own  age, 
we  have  the  play  of  the  prophetic  imagination,  although  a  claim 
to  supernatural  revelations  is  made  on  behalf  of  those  whose 
names  are  attached  to  the  writings.  Fantastic  imagery  and 
strange  symbolism  constitute  the  literary  form  of  this  type  of 
literature.  These  are  seemingly  enigmatical,  but  to  the  inter¬ 
ested  readers  of  that  day  they  were  commonly  intelligible.  Such 
strange  literary  devices,  indeed,  obviated  the  dangers  attendant 
upon  open  speech,  while  in  no  way  blinding  those  who  were 
in  the  secret  of  the  production. 

For  more  than  two  centuries  before  Christ,  and  until  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.  D.,  this  type  of  literature 
molded  the  political  and  religious  ideas  and  ideals  of  the  Jews. 


Appendix 


255 


It  is  utterly  impossible  to  appreciate  the  New  Testament  with¬ 
out  some  idea  of  the.  character  and  content  of  the  Apocalyptic 
Literature.  Beginning  with  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  has 
been  styled  the  first  Apocalypse,  this  literature  prepared  the 
popular  mind  either  to  find  its  full  satisfaction  in  the  Person 
and  teachings  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  or  to  persist  in  those 
tendencies  which  led  to  His  crucifixion,  and  eventually,  in  mad 
antagonism  to  the  imperial  power  of  Rome,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  nation  itself.  The  voice  of  prophecy  had  long 
been  silent;  in  its  stead,  the  voice  of  the  scribe,  and  the  scribal 
school  was  heard,  expounding  the  law;  it  was  this  voice  and 
this  teaching,  which  made  possible,  and  necessitated  the  rise  of 
the  Apocalyptic  Literature.  The  very  early  beginnings  of  this 
type  of  literature  may  be  traced  in  the  writings  of  Ezekiel  and 
Zechariahj  but  it  was  to  receive  full  and  complete  illustration 
in  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

This  Book,  according  to  the  traditional  view  of  its  author¬ 
ship,  which  the  Church  inherited  from  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
is  held  to  have  been  written  by  the  Daniel  who  is  at  once  its 
hero  and  its  author.  This  view  predominated  throughout  the 
centuries,  questioned,  however,  now  and  again,  by  some  op¬ 
ponent  of  Christianity,  or  some  free-thinker.  The  very  source 
of  opposition  to  the  traditional  view  disinclined  the  Church  to 
listen  to  the  arguments  for  their  contention.  In  compara¬ 
tively  recent  years,  however,  a  mass  of  incontrovertible  evi¬ 
dence  has  caused  modern  scholarship,  with  singular  unanimity, 
to  regard  the  Book  as  the  literary  production  of  some  ardent 
Jew  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  who, 
for  reasons  of  his  own,  wrote  under  the  name  Daniel.  In 
writing  under  an  assumed  name,  he  followed  the  well-estab¬ 
lished  usage  of  his  age,  employing  a  literary  form  with  which 
all  were  familiar.  Such  apparent  falsity  may  impress  us  as 
unpardonable;  we  must  remember,  however,  to  judge  the  author 
by  the  standards  of  his  own  age,  not  by  those  of  our  time. 
Judged  by  these,  his  act  was  most  natural  and  seemly.  It  was 
a  common  custom  of  Jewish  writers,  both  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  and  in  the  Extra-Canonical  Literature,  to  represent  mes¬ 
sages  of  their  day  as  having  been  delivered  by  the  noble  spirits 
of  the  past.  Such  a  statement  as  the  following  is  conservative 
and  true:  “Thus  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  is  given  as  though 


256 


Jesus’  Idea 


spoken  by  Moses  in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  the  legislation  of  C. 
as  though  revealed  to  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  The  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes  is  written  as  the  experience  of  Solomon.  While  in 
2nd  Esther,  Baruch,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  the  Jewish 
Apocalypses  generally,  this  method  of  composition  is  abun¬ 
dantly  illustrated,  and  was  evidently  a  favorite  one  with  the 
devout  and  pious  of  the  centuries  immediately  preceding  and 
following  Christ.”  Of  this  custom  Monsieur  Renan  aptly 
remarks:  “Honesty  and  imposture  are  words  which,  in  our 
rigid  consciences,  are  opposed  as  two  irreconcilable  terms.  In 
the  East  they  are  connected  by  a  thousand  subtle  links  and 
windings.  The  authors  of  the  Apocryphal  books  (of  “Daniel” 
and  of  “Enoch”  for  instance),  men  highly  exalted,  in  order  to 
aid  their  cause,  committed,  without  a  shadow  of  scruple,  an 
act  which  we  should  term  a  fraud.  The  literal  truth  has  little 
value  to  the  Oriental ;  he  sees  everything  through  the  medium 
of  his  ideas,  his  interests,  and  his  passions”  (“La  Vie  de  Jesus,” 

p.  219). 

In  the  Book  of  Daniel,  then,  we  have  not  only  a  signal 
illustration  of  the  Apocalyptic  Literature,  but  also  of  the  habit 
of  the  Ancients  in  writing  pseudonymously.  Who  Daniel  was 
it  is  impossible  to  ascertain;  whether  the  character  is  wholly 
imaginary,  or  the  creation  of  an  author  who  clothed  a  per¬ 
sonality  of  the  Exilic  Age,  or  some  other  age,  with  glowing  tra¬ 
dition,  or  supposititious  virtues,  one  cannot  determine.  How¬ 
ever,  this  question  in  no  wise  affects  the  value  of  the  literary 
production.  Some  Jew,  conscious  that  he  understood  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  past  and  of  the  present,  and  confident  that,  in 
the  Providence  of  God,  he  had  been  enlightened  as  to  the 
future,  proceeds  in  Apocalyptic  fashion  to  set  forth  his  mes¬ 
sage  for  the  admonition  and  consolation  of  his  age.  His  aim 
is  not  that  of  the  historian :  the  aim  is  to  exhort  and  to  en¬ 
courage. 


APPENDIX  F 


THE  MEANING  OF  ECCLESIA 

In  classical  Greek  eKKXrjam  denoted  the  body  of  free  citizens 
in  a  Greek  city  to  whom  was  intrusted  the  transaction  of  public 
affairs,  and  who  were  summoned  to  the  assembly  by  a  herald. 
Hence  eKic\ri<jlci  denoted  an  assembly  of  free  citizens  who 
were  “called  out”  or  elected  from  a  larger  population.  Even 
in  the  New  Testament  we  find  a  kindred — or,  more  correctly, 
a  less  technical — usage  of  the  word.  When  the  Ephesian  popu¬ 
lace,  incited  to  riot  against  the  Christians  by  the  denunciations 
of  the  silversmith  Demetrius,  sought  to  end  the  influence  of 
the  apostle  Paul  and  his  companions,  Gaius  and  Aristarchus, 
the  assemblage  is  described  by  the  word  €kk  'kr.a  (Acts  19:32, 

39, 41). 

We  must  not  dwell,  however,  upon  the  classical  usage;  for 
the  word  does  not  come  to  us  in  the  New  Testament  at  first 
hand  from  that  source.  Valuable  and  eminently  worthy  of 
Christian  usage  as  eKKXrjcrt a  is  in  its  classical  sense,  and  admir¬ 
ably  adapted  from  a  consideration  of  its  component  parts — eK 
“from”  or  “out  of,”  and  Ka\e «  to  “call” — to  designate  the 
Christian  assembly  as  the  elect  or  called  of  God  from  the 
larger  population  of  the  world,  we  must  not  fail  to  take  into 
account  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint.  When,  to  satisfy 
the  needs  of  Greek-speaking  Jews  in  Egypt,  the  Old  Testament 
was  translated  from  the  original  Hebrew,  which  was  at  best  a 
provincial  tongue,  into  the  cosmopolitan  language  of  Greece, 
some  word  had  to  be  found  to  take  the  place  of  the  Hebrew 

or  “congregation.”  The  word  selected  was  eiadurjaier 
In  the  Hebrew  Bible  two  words  are  used  to  signify  a  com¬ 
munity  or  congregation — itlJJ  and  Used  substantially 

in  the  same  sense,  the  choice  of  one  or  the  other  is  determined 
by  no  difference  in  meaning,  but  rather  by  the  taste  of  the 

257 


258 


Jesus1  Idea 


author.  rny  is,  however,  the  older  term,  and  signified  any 

assembly  or  congregation,  while  came  to  denote  the  specific 

community  or  assembly  of  Israel.  For  example,  in  Judg.  14:8 
itiy  is  used  of  a  swarm  of  bees,  and  in  Ps.  68,  of  a  “multitude  of 

bulls” ;  yet  elsewhere  in  the  Psalms  the  two  words  are  found 
without  difference  in  meaning,  and  denote  the  “congregation  of 

Israel.”  Studying  we  find  that  it  is  used  in  the  Old 

Testament  to  designate  an  assembly  summoned  for  a  specific 
purpose  ( I  Kings  8  165 ) ,  or  one  which  met  on  some  festal  occa¬ 
sion  (Deut.  23:1);  but  far  more  frequently  does  it  denote 
“the  community  of  Israel  collectively  regarded  as  a  congrega¬ 
tion”  (Selbie),  i.  e.,  the  national  assembly,  “the  whole  con¬ 
gregation  of  Israel  regarded  in  its  entirety  as  the  people  of 
God”  (J.  Armitage  Robinson),  as  in  Deut.  18:16  and  Judg. 
21 :8.  A  New  Testament  echo  of  this  usage  is  found  in  the 
speech  of  Stephen  (Acts  7:38)  and  in  Heb.  2:12. 

Now  when  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Scriptures  was 
in  the  making,  some  Greek  words  were  needed  as  the  equiv¬ 
alents  of  and  afii?  and  we  notice  that  the  Greek  avvaycoyrj 

represents  the  Hebrew  Hiy,  while  4/c/cX^o-to:  represents  StfJJJ. 
This  is  the  usual,  but  not  the  universal  rule.  Sometimes 
avvaywy rj  is  used  for  itfjjj,  but  simply  for  the  sake  of  uni¬ 
formity  in  the  written  Greek.  Schurer  tells  us  that  in  the 
later  Judaism  a  difference  in  meaning  arose,  avvayuy V  being 
used  “of  the  actual  congregation  in  any  one  place,”  while 
eKk\7](Tia  designated  the  ideal,  “the  assembly  of  those  called  by 
God  to  salvation”;  and  Selbie  rightly  remarks:  “It  is  easy 
to  see  how,  on  this  account,  eKKXrjaia  displaced  avvayc cyrj  in 
Christian  circles.”  Such,  briefly,  is  the  history  of  the  words. 
Excursions  of  this  kind  into  the  fundamental  meaning  and 
usage  of  words  may  to  the  superficial  appear  unnecessary  and 
trying,  but  in  reality  they  are  absolutely  essential  if  we  would 
entertain  adequate  and  justifiable  conceptions. 

’E/c/cXryo-to:,  then,  confronts  us  in  the  New  Testament  freighted 
with  the  classical  usage  and  the  Hebrew  usage.  Yet  both 
usages  manifestly  have  points  of  contact;  the  Greek  as¬ 
sembly  and  the  Israelitish  congregation  have  in  common  certain 


Appendix 


259 


fundamental  features.  The  congregation  of  Israel  was  assur¬ 
edly  the  called,  or  the  elect  of  God:  called  from  the  many 
nations  to  benefit  the  many.  There  is  an  appropriateness  in 
the  word,  from  whatever  point  we  view  it,  which  makes  its 
adoption  to  denote  the  church  of  Jesus  both  impressive  and 
deeply  suggestive.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
Jesus  in  all  probability  spoke  and  taught  in  Aramaic.  While 
a  large  number  of  Greek  words  had  been  introduced  into  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic  of  His  day,  this  by  no  means  proves 
that  the  common  people  of  Palestine  possessed  an  adequate 
knowledge  of  Greek.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that  the  lower 
classes  had  either  no  knowledge,  or  at  most  a  superficial 
knowledge,  of  Greek,  while  the  higher  or  educated  classes 
were  probably  well-acquainted  with  the  language.  It  is  only 
reasonable,  therefore,  to  assume  that  the  language  of  Jesus  was 
Aramaic.  The  question  then  arises  as  to  what  was  the  word 
used  by  Jesus  in  this  connection,  and  what  was  its  meaning. 

It  is  perhaps  impossible  to  answer  this  question  with  preci¬ 
sion.  Certain  facts,  however,  would  seem  to  shed  some  light 
at  least  upon  the  subject.  We  have  seen  that  the  Septuagint 

puts  (Twaywyrj  for  Hiy,  and  usually  6KKhri<jLa  for  also 

that  in  the  Old  Testament  there  was  no  substantial  distinc¬ 
tion  in  meaning  between  the  two.  When  the  Hebrew  Scrip¬ 
tures  were  used  in  the  services  of  the  synagogue,  it  was  found 
necessary  to  follow  their  reading  by  an  oral  “targum” — a  para¬ 
phrase,  or  free  translation,  into  Aramaic,  the  current  language 
of  the  people.  These  “targums”  at  a  later  time  were  reduced 
to  writing.  Now,  in  the  targums  we  find  used  for 

HIV  and  generally  for  ^nj?.  It  is  quite  probable  that 

Jesus  used  one  of  these  words.  Which  word  the  Master 
selected  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  now  to  determine.  The 
choice  of  one  or  the  other,  however,  in  no  wise  affects  the  idea 
entertained  by  Jesus,  inasmuch  as  both  words  designate  the 
same  thing — the  “congregation  of  Israel.” 

The  selection,  then,  of  eKKXrjAa,  when  the  Aramaic  say¬ 
ings  of  Jesus  were  translated  into  Greek  for  Gentile  use, 
would  appear  most  natural  under  the  existing  circumstances. 
3 waycoyr]  had  come  to  have  distinctly  Jewish  associations, 
which  unfitted  it  for  Christian  usage,  while  kKKhrjaia,  from 


Jesus’  Idea 


260 

its  use  in  the  Septuagint — and  perhaps  from  its  consonance 
with  Greek  ideas — was  most  happily  adapted  to  express  the 
preeminent  idea  of  the  Christian  church  as  the  called  of  God. 

The  word,  indeed,  touched,  in  vital  manner,  both  the 
Gentile  and  the  Jewish  world.  It  would  appeal  to  both  with 
subtle  power.  And  especially  was  the  choice  of  kKKXrjaia 
natural,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  already  this  term  had  become 
widely  established  as  a  description  of  the  local  organizations 
of  the  Christians.  Hence  €KK\rjaia  was  used  to  translate 
the  Aramaic  word  which  Jesus  Himself  had  employed  to  denote 
His  church. 

The  word  used,  then,  suggests  to  our  mind  the  ancient 
congregation  of  Israel,  if  we  think  of  the  Hebrew  significance; 
and  an  assembly  of  free  men  called  out  of  a  larger  population 
by  a  herald,  if  we  contemplate  the  Greek  significance  of  the 
term.  There  is  much  food  for  thought  in  the  latter.  One  is 
tempted  to  dwell  upon  the  conception  of  the  church  as  an 
assemblage  of  free  men — free  from  the  curse  and  slavery  of 
sin,  free  as  the  birds  of  the  air,  free  because  they  serve  God 
“whose  service  is  perfect  freedom”;  an  assemblage  summoned 
from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth  by  the  mighty  voice  of 
Jesus  which  has  sounded,  and  is  sounding  down  the  ages; 
an  assemblage  summoned  to  transact  the  business  of  the  world, 
for  such  is  the  mission  of  the  church — to  bring  man,  the  world, 
and  human  affairs,  into  harmony  with  the  all-holy  and  sovereign 
will  of  God;  and  Christ  conceived  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
itself  as  the  “universal  rule  of  Christian  principles.”  Such 
is  the  temptation. 

But  we  must  resist  it,  and  dwell  rather  upon  the  primary 
and  fundamental  thought  of  Jesus  as  expressed  in  the  word 
eKK\r](7LQi,  which  is  derived  from  the  Hebrew  and  not  from  the 
Greek  source. 


APPENDIX  G 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  PETER 

When  first  brought  into  contact  with  Jesus,  Peter  had  been 
thus  addressed:  “Thou  art  Simon  the  son  of  Jona:  thou 
shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is  by  interpretation,  A  stone.” 
(St.  Jn.  1:42.)  His  confession  at  length  proved  the  aptness 
of  Jesus’  characterization,  for  immediately  after  the  confession 
the  Master  declared :  “I  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church;  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven”  (St.  Mt.  16:18- 
19)-  Jesus,  indeed,  had  read  Peter  aright.  He  had  seen 
the  native  capabilities  of  the  man.  Vacillating,  and  unstable 
because  he  lacked  that  which  alone  could  arrest  his  being  and 
confer  the  power  of  tremendous  steadfastness,  he  yet  possessed 
the  quality  of  splendid  reverence,  and  an  ultimately  impregnable 
devotion  combined  with  a  noble  aggressiveness.  Jesus,  of 
course,  did  not  wish  to  build  his  brotherhood  upon  an  insecure 
foundation;  he  desired  permanency.  At  length  he  has  the 
Rock  in  the  person  of  St.  Peter  in  view  of  his  deliberate 
confession.1 

1  The  proper  name,  tt frpos,  signified  “a  stone,  or  rock,  or 
ledge  or  cliff/'’  It  was  “used  metaphorically,  of  a  soul  hard  and 
unyielding  and  so  resembling  a  rock”  (Thayer),  irirpa  meant  also 
a  rock,  ledge  or  cliff,  and  was  also  used  to  describe  “a  man 
like  a  rock,  by  reason  of  his  firmness  and  strength  of  soul.”  In 
classical  Greek,  the  distinction  is  generally  observed  between  Trtrpa, 
the  massive  rock,  and  ir^rpos,  a  detached  but  large  fragment. 
Both  of  these  words  are  used  in  the  passage  quoted  above;  irtrpos 
being  first,  and  7 rkrpa  second,  Both  of  these  terms,  however, 
would  be  represented  in  the  Aramaic  which  Jesus  spoke  by  the 

same  word  Cephas. 

261 


262 


Jesus ’  Idea 


The  corner-stone,  at  least,  is  at  hand  upon  which  to  erect 
His  €kk\ rjaca.1 

Jesus  thus  gives  St.  Peter  the  primacy  among  the  Apostles. 
It  was  his,  indeed,  by  right  of  his  confession.2 

Further  he  says,  “I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.”  The  idea  here  is  easily 
decipherable.  Since  the  keeper  of  the  keys  has  the  power  to 
open  and  to  shut,  the  word  is  figuratively  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  denote  power  and  authority  of  various  kinds. 
“The  key  was  an  Oriental  symbol  of  authority.  When  a  scribe 
was  inducted  into  his  office,  he  was  given  a  key,  as  a  symbol 
of  his  authority  to  open  the  treasury  of  divine  truth  contained 
in  the  law”  (cf.  St.  Lu.  11:52  and  St.  Mt.  23:13).  A  key, 
indeed,  always  and  primarily  unlocks  something.  Jesus,  in  the 
figurative  language  of  the  Orient,  was  then  holding  the  keys 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  He  had  sought  assiduously  to 
unlock  the  Kingdom  to  men.  But  now  as  the  threatening 
clouds  of  Jewish  hatred  and  persecution  grew  more  dense, 
he  saw  that  preparation  for  the  future  must  be  made.  The 
necessity  was  becoming  pressing.  Peter  had  just  shown  an 
insight  into  His  purposes  that  was  born  of  Heaven;  what 

1  “The  community  of  believers”  in  the  New  Testament,  according 
to  a  common  figure,  is  represented  as  a  building  (I  Cor.  3:10;  Eph. 
2:19;  Gal.  2:9;  I  Pet.  2:4). 

2  Peter’s  name  is  always  placed  first  in  the  lists  of  the  Apostles  in 
the  New  Testament;  he  is  also  represented  in  many  passages  as 
exercising  leadership  (Acts.  15:7;  2:14;  Gal.  1:18;  2:7,  8).  This, 
however,  does  not  involve  the  inference  as  to  the  supremacy  of 
St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  which  the  Church  of  Rome  draws 
from  it.  In  fact,  there  is  nothing  about  successors  here.  The 
Roman  Catholic  belief  is  purely  inferential.  Yet,  the  Roman  infer¬ 
ence  is  quite  as  valid  as  the  Anglican  inference,  based  upon  the 
wording  of  the  Apostolic  Commission,  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
will  be  with  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  Bishops  of  the 
Church,  until  the  end  of  time.  The  successors  of  Peter  and  of 
the  Apostles  are,  of  course,  not  lineal  but  spiritual.  They  stand 
at  wash-tubs  and  drive  teams  as  well  as  sit  upon  Papal  and  Episcopal 
thrones.  Some,  indeed,  of  the  fancied  successors  of  St.  Peter  have 
been  the  “rocks”  upon  which  the  Church  has  gone  to  pieces,  while 
only  by  the  greatest  stretch  of  the  imagination,  and  the  exercise 
of  the  extremest  courtesy,  can  many  bishops  of  the  past  and  of  the 
present  be  accounted  in  any  way  successors  of  the  Apostles. 


Appendix  263 

could  be  more  fitting,  then,  than  that  he,  after  Him,  should  hold 
the  keys  ?  1 

Some  one  in  the  future  must  become  the  Apostle  of  the 
Kingdom.  Why  not  Peter?  Hence  we  hear  the  words:  “I 
will  (notice  the  future  tense)  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom.”  Jesus  held  them  now,  but  Peter  would  hold  them 
shortly.  The  first  to  understand  would  be  first  to  make  others 
understand.  “The  Acts  of  the  Apostles”  itself  is  the  best  com¬ 
mentary  upon  this  passage.  There  we  see  St.  Peter  holding  the 
keys.  Especially  in  admitting  Cornelius,  the  Roman  Cen¬ 
turion,  did  he  turn  the  key  which  unlocked  the  door  of  Jew¬ 
ish  exclusivism  and  admitted  the  Gentile  wrorld  into  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God.2 

The  thought  expressed  by  the  words  “binding  and  loosing” 
is  “similar  to  that  associated  with  the  figure  of  the  keeper  of 
the  keys.”  The  sense  is  probably  that  of  general  supervision 
and  indisputable  authority.  The  terms  themselves  “are  the 
technical  forms  for  the  verdict  of  a  Jewdsh  doctor  of  the  Law 
who  pronounced  something  as  ‘bound,’  i.  e.,  forbidden,  or  as 
‘loosed,’  i.  e.,  permitted;  not,  of  course,  in  virtue  of  his  own 
absolute  authority,  but  in  conformity  with  his  knowledge  of 
the  oral  law.”  3 

Interpreted  strictly  here,  they  would  mean  that  St.  Peter, 
by  virtue  of  his  insight  and  knowledge  of  Jesus’  oral  teaching, 
would  “be  able  to  give  an  authoritative  decision  in  regard  to 
what  the  adherents  of  the  theocracy  may  do,  and  may  not 
do.”  Peter  would  unfold,  in  fact,  those  spiritual  principles 
which  should  henceforth  more  and  more  govern  mankind.  This 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  wTas  subsequently  conferred,  how¬ 
ever,  upon  the  Apostles  collectively,  as  we  shall  see  (St.  Mt. 

1  In  inaugurating  a  movement  to-day,  the  first  to  grasp  the  idea, 
and  to  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  affair,  would  be  called  the  founda¬ 
tion  stone,  and,  all  things  being  equal,  because  of  his  ability  and 
insight,  would  assume  or  be  forced  into  leadership. 

2  Isa.  22:15  ff.  gives  an  Old  Testament  illustration  of  the  powers 
of  the  keys.  Shebna  “is  comptroller  of  the  household,  to  whom 
the  management  of  all  the  King’s  domestic  concerns  is  entrusted.” 
See  also  Rev.  3  \y  ff. 

3  “The  wise  men,  or  rabbis,  had,  in  virtue  of  their  ordination,  the 
power  of  deciding  disputes  relating  to  the  Law.”  Enel.  Bib.,  Vol. 

I,  P-  574- 


264 


Jesus’  Idea 


18),  where  “the  special  application  of  their  authority  is  made 
in  respect  of  the  discipline  of  the  community.”  In  the  same 
sense,  the  words  of  Jesus  spoken  to  the  Apostles  after  the 
Resurrection  must  be  interpreted :  “Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit, 
they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained”  (St.  Jn.  20:23).  Dalman  aptly  says:  “For 
exclusion  from  the  community  on  account  of  some  offense  in¬ 
cludes  the  ‘retaining’  of  the  sins;  the  readmission  of  the  sinner 
includes  the  ‘remission’  of  his  sins”  (see  “Words  of  Jesus,” 
pp.  211-217). 


APPENDIX  H 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  SUFFERINGS  AND  DEATH  OF  JESUS 

Quite  early  in  His  teaching,  Jesus  had  indicated  that  death 
would  be  His  ultimate  fate:  “The  days  will  come  when  the 
bridegroom  will  be  taken  away”  (St.  Mk.  2:20).  (“Taken 
away,”  d.'irapdy,  has  the  idea  of  a  violent  removal  from  the 
disciples.)  This  reference  was  vague,  indeed,  but  disquieting. 
Disturbing  also  was  the  declaration,  “I  came  to  cast  fire 
on  the  earth,  and  what  will  I,  if  it  is  already  kindled?  But 
I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with;  and  how  am  I  straitened 
till  it  be  accomplished”  (St.  Lu.  12:49-50).  More  pronounced 
and  saddening,  however,  were  the  words  spoken  immediately 
after  St.  Peter’s  confession  of  His  Messiahship:  “And  He 
began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of  Man  must  suffer  many 
things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and  the  chief  priests,  and 
the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after  three  days  rise  again”  (St 
Mk.  8:31 ;  St.  Mt.  16:21 ;  St.  Lu.  9:22).  In  this  incident  we 
are  reminded  of  the  line  of  Messianic  development  revealed 
in  the  Old  Testament:  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  King,  the 
Suffering  Messiah,  the  Crown  through  Suffering.  Until  this 
time  Jesus  had  emphasized  the  Kingdom;  St.  Peter  acknowl¬ 
edged  Him  the  Messianic  King;  Jesus  immediately  announced 
the  Cross,  and  the  victory  through  the  Cross.  Such  a  con¬ 
ception  outraged  the  ideas  of  St.  Peter,  who  protested :  “Be 
it  far  from  thee,  Lord;  this  shall  never  be  unto  thee.”  .  .  . 
Jesus,  however,  replied  that  suffering  and  death  was  the  God- 
appointed  path ;  and  that  not  only  must  He  walk  in  this  way, 
but  His  disciples  also:  “Whosoever  will  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself  (renounce  self),  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow 
me”  (St.  Mk.  8:34).  In  other  words,  along  the  pathway  of 
sacrifice  and  service  could  the  Kingdom  of  God  alone  be  es¬ 
tablished  and  extended  (vs.  35).  Calvary  itself  was  but  the 
climax  of  a  life  of  sacrifice:  the  outward  culmination  of  a  life- 

265 


266 


Jesus’  Idea 


long  spiritual  crucifixion ;  the  prelude  to  many  lesser  Calvaries. 

More  significant,  however,  is  the  utterance  of  Jesus  when 
James  and  John  requested  to  sit,  one  on  His  right  hand  and 
the  other  on  His  left,  in  His  Kingdom.  Asking  whether  they 
were  able  to  drink  His  cup  of  suffering,  and  to  experience  His 
baptism  of  blood,  He  charged  them  to  fling  away  ambition: 
“Ye  know  that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the 
Gentiles  lord  it  over  them,  and  their  great  ones  exercise  au¬ 
thority  over  them.  But  it  is  not  so  among  you :  but  whosoever 
would  become  great  among  you,  shall  be  servant  of  all.  For 
verily  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto ,  but  to 
minister ,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many”  (St.  Mk. 
10:42-45;  St.  Mt.  20:25-28).  Here  Jesus  speaks  of  His  life 
and  death  as  one  of  service  and  of  sacrifice,  which  frees  many 
from  an  oppressive  thraldom.  Turning  to  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
we  read :  “I  am  the  good  Shepherd ;  the  good  shepherd  giveth 
his  life  for  the  sheep”  (St.  Jn.  10:1 1).  Jesus  also  speaks  of 
laying  down  His  life  for  His  friends  (15:13).  Even  more 
remarkable  are  the  words,  so  significant  of  the  value  of  His 
death:  “Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  corn  of  wheat 
fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone:  but  if  it  die,  it 
bringeth  forth  much  fruit”  (12:24).  “I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from 
the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me”  (12:32).  St.  Luke 
also  tells  us  that  after  the  Resurrection  Jesus  said  to  the 
disciples:  “O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
prophets  have  spoken:  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these 
things,  and  to  enter  into  His  glory?  And  beginning  at  Moses 
and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself”  (24:25-27).  Later 
He  said:  “These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while 
I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which 
were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in 
the  psalms,  concerning  me.  Then  opened  He  their  under¬ 
standing,  that  they  might  understand  the  scriptures,  and  said 
unto  them,  Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ 
to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day:  and  that 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem”  (24:44-47). 

These  quotations  do  not  exhaust  the  passages  relating  to  the 
value  of  Christ’s  death,  but  they  suffice  to  show  its  importance. 


Appendix 


267 


Jesus’  own  conviction  in  regard  to  His  death  was  along  these 
lines.  (1)  His  loyalty  to  Truth,  and  His  fearless  exposure  of 
Pharisaic  religion  would  lead  inevitably  to  a  violent  death  at 
the  hands  of  the  leaders  of  the  nation.  (2)  This,  however, 
was  the  God-appointed  path,  analogous  to  that  trodden  by  the 
prophets,  essential  to  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom,  and 
voluntarily  accepted  by  Jesus.  (3)  This  course,  however, 
would  lead  to  vast  benefit  to  many,  being  the  means  of  their 
delivery  from  the  slavery  of  sin.  To  such  an  end,  He  lived; 
for  such  an  end,  He  would  die.  His  death  and  His  life — the 
two  are  to  be  united — would  ransom  many.  How  this  ransom 
would  be  effected,  and  why  it  must  be  effected,  Jesus  did  not 
disclose.  That  His  life  and  death  are  effective  to  this  end,  the 
experience  of  thousands  attests.  Possibly  no  specific  ways  and 
reasons  were  present  even  to  the  mind  of  the  Master.  The 
great  fact  He  stated,  leaving  humanity  to  experience  its  bless¬ 
ings,  and  to  translate  it  into  thought  as  best  it  could.  All 
attempts  to  explain  the  fact  may  be  helpful,  but  none  can  be 
entirely  satisfactory,  for  the  fact  defies  human  comprehension. 
Jesus,  then,  was  a  supreme  sacrifice,  whether  in  life  or  in  death, 
sacrifice  of  self  to  God’s  obedience.  To  interpret  His  sacrifice 
in  the  sense  of  the  Jewish  sacrificial  system,  is  unworthy.  Even 
the  prophets  had  detected  that  God  desired  only  the  sacrifice 
of  the  inner  life.  This  sacrifice  Jesus  made;  and  this  had 
broken  the  power  of  Satan,  and  set  humanity  upon  a  new 
course.  The  word  ((ransomJ>  with  Jesus  was  untechnical — a 
term  of  poetic  and  mystic  meaning.  It  represented  a  sum- 
total:  the  effect  of  His  personality,  His  career,  and  His  work.1 

1  The  Greek —  \i 'npov  — ransom,  may  have  two  Hebrew  equiva¬ 
lents,  and  correspond  in  sense  to  their  meaning.  The  first  is 

my  or  fj&O,  which  suggests  “the  money  payments  required  under 

the  Law  to  secure  the  release  of  persons  from  slavery”  (Ex.  21 :8, 
Lev.  25:47-49).  The  second  is  “132  (literally,  a  “covering”)  used 

in  the  sense  of  a  “propitiatory  gift” — “restricted,  however,  by  usage 
to  a  gift  offered  as  a  satisfaction  for  a  life;  it  may  denote  the 
ransom  paid  by  an  offender  either  to  man  (Ex.  21:30,  Nu.  35  :30-32, 
Ps.  6:35),  or  to  God  (Ex.  30:12,  Ps.  49:7)  in  order  to  save  the 
life  which  he  has  forfeited  by  his  wrongdoing.” 


APPENDIX  I 


THE  POSSIBILITY,  THE  PROBABILITY  AND  THE  CREDIBILITY  OF 

MIRACLES 

The  fallacious  idea  of  nature,  so  popular  to-day,  as  a  hard 
and  fast  working  of  invariable  laws  which  brook  no  interrup¬ 
tion  or  interference,  was  not  entertained  by  Jesus.  The  con¬ 
ception  “that  nothing  happens  in  nature  which  is  in  contradic¬ 
tion  with  its  universal  laws,”  and  that  nature,  apart  from 
God,  includes  all  that  is — hence  a  miracle  cannot  be — was  far 
from  Jesus’  thought.  It  was  true  that  nature  did  proceed  in 
an  orderly  manner;  the  natural  world  was  cosmos,  not  chaos; 
yet  God  was  not  fettered  to  the  accustomed  modes  of  action. 
“Nature  is,  indeed,  governed  by  law  and  not  by  caprice:  that 
we  know  and  are  assured  of.  But  such  a  formula  does  not 
settle  the  matter.  A  wise  and  prudent  man’s  life  is  also  gov¬ 
erned  by  law  and  not  by  caprice,  and  yet  the  intervention  of  his 
moral  reason,  of  his  power  of  choice,  disturbs  from  time  to 
time  the  semblance  of  uniformity  in  his  conduct.  For  him  the 
same  physical  antecedents  do  not  always  issue  in  the  same  physi¬ 
cal  consequences,  because  moral  considerations — non-physical 
motives — may  sway  him  now  in  this  direction,  and  now  in  that. 
Thus  in  the  case  of  man,  who  is  a  part,  and  an  important  part, 
of  nature,  the  rule  of  uniformity  does  not  hold  absolutely. 
And  when  we  remember  that  the  Divine  Will  must  be,  at  the 
least,  as  independent  of  physical  law  as  is  man’s  will,  we  see 
no  ground  for  regarding  the  ‘Uniformity  of  Nature’  as  a 
constitutive  principle  of  the  Cosmos.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a 
convenient  way  of  saying  that  God’s  laws  are  general  laws; 
that  He  does  not  depart  from  the  usual  method  of  His  rule 
without  the  gravest  reasons  for  intervention.”  (Art.  “Nature,” 

p-  495\- 

Again,  Jesus  would  not  be  troubled  with  the  objection 
raised  to-day,  that  such  departures  from  the  usual  methods  of 

268 


Appendix 


269 

action  would  involve  a  loss  of  prestige  on  the  part  of  Deity, 
inasmuch  as  the  necessity  for  such  interferences  impugned  the 
Divine  Wisdom.  This  seems,  indeed,  a  plausible  argument. 
We  must  remember,  however,  that  God  in  the  beginning  created 
man  a  free  agent, — capable  of  choice.  This  action  certainly 
did  not  impugn  the  wisdom  of  God.  Hence,  if  man  was  unwise 
enough  to  use  his  liberty  in  making  a  wrong  choice,  and  conse¬ 
quently  found  himself  in  hopeless  entanglements,  incapable  of 
giving  himself  entire  relief,  no  matter  how  assiduously  he  sought 
to  accommodate  himself  to  the  natural  order,  and  God  was  the 
Father-God ,  as  Jesus  conceived  that  He  was,  what  could  be 
more  fitting  than  that  God  should  bring  into  play  unusual 
means  and  extraordinary  power  to  relieve  the  fatal  condition 
of  His  beloved  child?  That  this  was  the  condition  of  mankind 
we  have  had  full  opportunity  to  see;  that  this  was  the  course 
adopted  by  God,  we  shall  soon  see. 

Men,  however,  are  often  antagonized  by  the  idea  of  any 
break  occurring  in  the  established  order  of  nature;  hence  ex¬ 
planations  of  miracles  are  often  adduced,  which  seek  to  miti¬ 
gate  the  rigors  of  this  antagonism.  The  Duke  of  Argyll,  for 
instance,  writes  in  his  “Reign  of  Law”:  “Miracles  may  be 
wrought  by  the  selection  and  use  of  laws  of  which  man  knows 
and  can  know  nothing,  and  which,  if  he  did  know,  he  could  not 
employ”  (p.  16).  Too  great  stress,  however,  must  not  be 
placed  upon  nature’s  accustomed  order,  for  nature  itself  pre¬ 
sents  certain  inexplicable  breaks:  for  example,  the  step  from  the 
inorganic  to  the  organic,  and  from  consciousness  to  self-con¬ 
sciousness.  “Nature’s  order  and  continuity,  indeed,  is  simply 
a  generalization  from  observed  phenomena,  and  of  use  in  scien¬ 
tific  investigation.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
miracles  are  not  necessarily  to  be  thought  of  as  violations  of 
physical  law.  ‘Physical  Law,’  indeed,  in  its  entirety,  we  do 
not  know.  There  may  be  many  combinations  of  physical  forces 
known  to  the  Creator,  which  will  produce  what  we  call  mira¬ 
cles,  and  which  are  now'  entirely  beyond  our  ken.  Huxley 
wrote  very  wdsely:  ‘If  a  dead  man  did  come  to  life,  the  fact 
would  be  evidence,  not  that  any  law  of  nature  had  been  vio¬ 
lated,  but  that  those  laws,  even  when  they  express  the  results 
of  a  very  long  and  uniform  experience,  are  necessarily  based  on 
incomplete  knowledge,  and  are  to  be  held  only  on  grounds  of 


270 


Jesus’  Idea 


more  or  less  justifiable  expectation.’  ”  He  also  admits  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  miracles:  “Denying  the  possibility  of  miracles  seems 
to  me  quite  as  unjustifiable  as  speculative  Atheism.” 

Miracles,  however,  are  attacked  not  only  on  the  ground 
of  “possibility,”  but  also  of  “credibility.”  The  idea  is  that  if 
miracles  actually  happened  they  could  not  be  proved  by  human 
testimony,  for  they  are  absolutely  incredible  in  view  of  “the 
firm  and  unalterable  experience”  which  has  established  the  laws 
of  nature.  That  humanity’s  experience  has  been  “firm  and 
unalterable”  in  this  respect  is  the  very  point  at  issue,  and  to 
affirm  that  it  has  been  is  simply  unjustifiable  dogmatism. 
Human  testimony  can  establish  and  substantiate  miracles,  al¬ 
though  such  testimony  must  be  very  jealously  received,  weighed, 
and  tested,  and  it  must  be  assisted  by  an  inherent  fitness  in  the 
miracle  itself,  which  shall  commend  it  to  the  intellectual  and 
the  moral  nature  of  man.  That  Jesus  worked  what  purported 
to  be  miracles  is  supported  by  convincing  human  testimony. 
The  belief  in  His  miracles,  indeed,  is  found  to  have  been  uni¬ 
versally  accepted  at  a  very  early  date,  and  the  miracles  them¬ 
selves  are  recorded  in  writings  which  follow  so  closely  upon 
the  events  described,  as  practically  to  preclude  the  possibility 
of  the  growth  of  legends  of  miraculous  cures  and  works,  which 
grouped  themselves  around  the  unique  personality  of  the  Man 
Jesus.  Sufficient  time  perhaps  had  elapsed,  however,  for  the 
possible  addition  of  legendary  elements  to  the  separate  accounts 
of  miracles  which  were  really  wrought  by  Christ.  This  fact 
should  be  remembered  in  a  study  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus. 


APPENDIX  J 


THE  METAPHYSICAL  SONSHIP  OF  JESUS  IN  THE  SYNOPTIC 

GOSPELS 

Let  us  take,  for  instance,  the  passage  recently  quoted:  “No 
man  knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any 
man  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
will  reveal  him.”  While  this  passage  does  not  reveal  “what 
idea  Jesus  entertained  in  regard  to  the  genesis  of  His  divine 
Sonship,”  it  can  be  said  that  it  appears  “to  imply  that  Jesus  had 
shoivn  no  cognizance  of  any  beginning  in  this  relationship.  It 
seems  to  be  an  innate  property  of  His  personality,  seeing  that 
He,  as  distinct  from  all  others,  holds  for  His  own  the  claim 
to  the  sovereignty  of  the  world,  and  the  immediate  knowledge 
of  God,  just  as  a  son  by  right  of  birth  becomes  an  heir,  and 
by  upbringing  from  childhood  in  undivided  fellowship  with  the 
father  enters  into  that  spiritual  relationship  with  the  father, 
which  is  natural  for  the  child.”  The  passage,  indeed,  is  very 
suggestive,  and  if  the  interpretation  of  Professor  Bruce  is  jus¬ 
tifiable,  namely,  that  the  passage  marks  the  Son  as  the  revealer 
of  the  Father  to  those  in  the  past,  who  did  not  know  the  his¬ 
torical  Christ,  an  additional  interest  is  given  to  the  statement. 
“The  claim  is  not  meant  to  exclude  from  saving  knowledge 
of  God  all  who  are  ignorant  of  the  historical  Christ.  It  is 
meant  rather  to  teach,  that  whoever  has  such  knowledge, 
whether  within  Christendom  or  without,  gets  his  illumination 
from  the  Son  who  perfectly  knows  the  Father.  Does  not  this 
point  to  a  being  of  the  Son  independent  of  space  and  time?” 
(“The  Kingdom  of  God,”  p.  185.) 

Again  the  words  of  St.  Mark  13:32  are  thought-provok¬ 
ing.  “Of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not 
the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.” 
Most  explicit  testimony,  however,  is  derived  from  an  interview 
of  Jesus  with  the  Pharisees.  Jesus  asked  them  about  the 

271 


272 


Jesus’  Idea 


meaning  of  the  one  hundredth  and  tenth  Psalm.1 

The  interview  is  given  by  St.  Matthew  as  follows :  “While 
the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Jesus  asked  them,  say¬ 
ing,  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Whose  son  is  he?  They  say 
unto  him,  The  son  of  David.  He  saith  unto  them,  How  then 
doth  David  in  spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying,  The  Lord  said 
unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make  thine 
enemies  thy  footstool?  If  David  then  call  him  Lord,  how 
is  he  his  son?  And  no  man  was  able  to  answer  him  a  word. 
(22:41-46,  cf.  St.  Mk.  12:25-37;  St.  Lu.  20:41-44.) 

The  significance  of  this  colloquy  is  so  well  brought  out  by 
Dalman  that  we  quote  his  words  at  length.  “The  aim — is  the 
same — to  awaken  reflection  in  regard  to  the  descent  of  the 
Messiah  rather  than  to  his  dignity  or  exalted  rank.  There 
would  indeed  be  nothing  remarkable  in  the  fact  that  a  son 
should  attain  to  a  higher  rank  than  his  father,  and  for  the 
Scribes  it  would  not  in  the  least  be  strange  that  the  Messiah 
should  be  greater  than  David.  On  that  point  they  did  not, 
in  fact,  require  any  instruction.  Justin  Martyr  says  (“Dia¬ 
logue  with  Trypho,”  33,  83)  that  the  Jews  of  his  time  applied 
Psalm  no  to  Hezekiah;  so  it  appeared  to  them  possible  that 
David  should  call  this  king  his  Lord — An  unbiased  reading 
of  the  statement  of  Jesus  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the 
Messiah  is  in  reality  the  Son  of  One  more  exalted  than  David , 
that  isj  the  Son  of  God.  And  in  that  idea  there  was  nothing 
extravagant.  If  Jesus  was  conscious  of  no  beginning  in  his 
peculiar  relationship  to  God,  it  must,  of  course,  have  had  its 
genesis  with  His  birth ;  and,  further,  God  must  have  so  partici¬ 
pated  in  assigning  that  position,  that  the  human  factors 
concerned  fell  entirely  into  the  background.  The  prophet 
Jeremiah,  according  to  Jer.  1 :5,  prided  himself  in  his  prenatal 
election  by  God  to  prophecy ;  and  Isa.  49 :5  says  that  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  was  formed  from  the  womb  for  his  appointed 
function.  Why  should  Jesus,  conscious  of  being  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  whom  Isaiah  predicted,  not  have  had  a  similar 
consciousness  in  regard  to  Himself?  Only  it  would  be  natural 

1  David  was  universally  thought  of  as  the  author  of  this  Psalm. 
The  Psalm,  in  fact,  was  only  composed  in  the  time  of  David,  and 
was  addressed  to  him.  This  fact,  however,  does  not  affect  in  any 
way  the  impression  which  Jesus  was  seeking  to  give. 


Appendix 


273 


that  He,  being  ‘the  Son/  as  distinguished  from  all  servants, 
should  presuppose,  not  merely  selection  and  predestination,  but 
also  a  creative  act  on  the  part  of  God,  rendering  Him  what  no 
one,  who  stands  in  a  merely  natural  connection  with  man¬ 
kind,  can  ever  by  his  own  efforts  become.  This  idea  is  in  no 
way  opposed  to  the  other,  that  Jesus  called  Himself  ‘Son  of 
Man.’  For  all  the  sublimity  of  which  He  was  conscious 
in  regard  to  His  past,  present,  and  future,  never  excludes  the 
idea  that  for  the  present,  by  decree  of  the  Divine  Providence, 
He  moves  about  among  mankind,  defenceless  and  weak.  We 
do  not  find  expressed  the  idea  of  God’s  becoming  man,  or  of 
a  twofold  nature  united  in  a  single  person;  but  there  is  at¬ 
tested  the  presence  of  One  who  appears  in  human  weakness, 
who  is  a  perfect  Revealer  of  God  and  the  future  Ruler  of 
the  world,  who  has  been  bestowed  upon  the  world  by  the 
supernatural  power  of  God.”  (“Words  of  Jesus,”  pp.  285, 
6,  7-) 

Thus  far,  indeed,  the  Synoptic  Gospels  lead  us  into  the 
realm  of  metaphysics. 


APPENDIX  K 


THE  LOGOS  IDEA 

Why  St.  John  should  refer  to  Jesus  as  the  “Word,”  and 
his  intention  in  doing  so,  will  become  apparent  in  a  moment.1 

St.  John  used  this  term  as  the  result  of  a  continuous  de¬ 
velopment  of  an  idea.  In  Genesis,  Creation  is  regarded  as  due 
to  a  command  or  word  of  God.  In  later  poetical  descriptions 
of  creation,  there  is  a  quasi-personification  of  this  idea:  “By 
the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made”  (Ps.  33:6;  cf. 
107:2;  147:15,  18;  148:8).  In  Isaiah  5:10  there  is  a  more 
poetic  personification  of  the  thought.  Then  by  development, 
revelation,  or  the  message  of  God  to  men,  came  to  be  called 

“the  word  of  the  Lord.”  Hence  we  read:  “the  word  of  the 

Lord  came *  (Micah  1:1);  “the  word  which  Isaiah  saw” 
(Isa.  2:1;  cf.  Amos  1:1).  In  the  Wisdom  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament,  there  is  a  fuller  development.  The  “word” 
becomes  “an  agent  of  God  in  the  accomplishment  of  his  gracious 
will  and  purpose”  (Job.  28:12-28;  Prov.  8:22-31).  And 
passing  from  the  Canonical  Scriptures  to  the  Apocryphal  Wis¬ 
dom  Literature,  we  find  a  still  more  pronounced  development. 
( Ecclesiasticus  1:4-10;  24:3-12,  32:33.)  We  quote  only  an 
interesting  passage  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon:  “For  she 

is  a  breath  of  the  power  of  God,  and  a  clear  effulgence  of  the 

glory  of  the  Almighty;  therefore  can  nothing  defiled  find 
entrance  into  her.  For  she  is  an  effulgence  from  everlasting 
light,  and  an  unspotted  mirror  of  the  working  of  God,  and  an 
image  of  his  goodness.  And  she,  being  one,  hath  power  to  do 
all  things;  and  remaining  in  herself,  reneweth  all  things,  etc.”; 
— “Who  madeth  all  things  by  thy  word”  (9:1).  This  is  also 
worthy  of  quotation:  “Thine  all-powerful  word  leaped  from 

1  The  Greek  term  translated  “word”  is  logos .  This  word  in 
Classical  Greek  meant  both  a  “word”  and  “reason” ;  in  Biblical 
Greek,  however,  it  is  used  chiefly  in  the  sense  of  “word.” 

274 


Appendix 


275 


heaven  out  of  the  royal  throne,  a  stern  warrior,  into  the  midst 
of  the  doomed  land,  bearing  as  a  sharp  sword  thine  unfeigned 
commandment.”  (Revised  Version,  18:15,  16.) 

In  the  Targums,  or  Aramaic  paraphrases  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  used  in  Our  Lord’s  time,  the  same  tendency  is  mani¬ 
fest.  The  word  of  Jehovah  is  personified,  and  represented  as 
an  intermediary  between  God  and  the  world.  Acts  of  God 
were  attributed  to  the  Divine  Word.  For  instance,  the  Targums 
say:  “They  heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God 
walking  in  the  Garden”  (Gen.  3:8.)  This  evidence  leads  us 
to  the  important  conclusion  expressed  in  the  following  words: 
“Thus  Hebrew  thought  tended  to  represent  God's  self -manifes¬ 
tation  as  mediated  by  an  agent ,  more  or  less  conceived  as  per¬ 
sonal,  and  yet  blending  with  the  divine  personality  itself  T  Now 
with  this  tendency  and  with  this  usage  of  “the  word,”  the  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  a  Palestinian  Jew  would  be  familiar. 

There  was,  however,  another  interesting  use  of  this  ex¬ 
pression.  The  Greeks  were  busied  with  the  problem  as  to  how 
a  transcendent  God  could  come  into  relation  with  the  world. 
To  bridge  this  gulf,  they  made  use  of  “ideas,”  and  logos  came 
to  stand  for  the  “reason”  of  Deity.  This  feature  of  the  Greek 
Philosophy  was  borrowed  by  an  Alexandrian  Jew — Philo — 
who  sought  to  harmonize  the  Old  Testament  Revelation  with 
Greek  Philosophy.  “Philo  adopted  after  others,  the  term 
logos,  probably  because  it  was  familiar  to  both  Judaism  and 
Hellenism,  to  denote  the  total  manifestation  of  divine  powers 
and  ideas  in  the  universe.  God  is  abstract  being,  without 
qualities,  but  from  Him  has  proceeded  the  Logos,  His  rational 
thought,  which  first  existed,  as  the  ideal  world  in  the  divine 
mind,  and  then  formed  and  inhabited  the  actual  cosmos.” 
Thus  in  Philo’s  thought,  the  “word”  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  the  chief  idea,  “through  which  God  mediated  His  communi¬ 
cation  with  the  world.”  It  was  the  agent  of  creation  and  of 
the  administration  of  the  world,  and  was  spoken  of  as  “the 
first-born  Son  of  God,”  and  “the  second  God.”  In  the  per¬ 
sonification  of  this  idea,  however,  Philo  was  not  always  un¬ 
equivocal  or  consistent.  Now  with  this  usage  of  the  word 
“logos,”  St.  John  was  also  probably  familiar.  While  some 
scholars  maintain  that  he  derived  his  doctrine  from  the  Old 
Testament  use  of  the  expression,  and  others  contend  for  the 


27  6 


Jesus 1  Idea 


Philonic  source,  the  most  probable  view  is  “that  St.  John 
adopted  his  Logos  phraseology  because  in  both  Jewish  and  Gen¬ 
tile  circles,  the  term  was  familiar.  It  was  a  leading  term  by 
which  religious  thought  was  striving  to  express  the  idea ,  though 
with  much  misconception ,  of  an  all-comprehensive,  all-wise,  and 
directly  active  revelation  of  God  to  the  world!" 

How  readily,  then,  St.  John  would  adopt  it!  The  Apostle 
was  an  old  man,  and  he  had  grown  old  in  meditating  upon  the 
august  mystery  of  the  Christ.  His  Gospel  is  meditative  through¬ 
out,  not  argumentative.  Reflection  upon  Jesus’  testimony 
to  Himself,  His  Personality,  and  His  teaching,  had  led  St.  John 
to  a  great  conclusion.  But  how  could  he  express  his  thought? 
The  logos  idea  was  at  hand.  Thoughtful  years  and  spiritual 
insight  availed  themselves  of  the  waiting  word,  and  we  have 
the  triumphant  strains  of  the  opening  verses  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  The  declarations  are  not  based,  however,  upon 
philosophic  speculation,  but  upon  reflection,  which  has  worked 
up  Jesus’  own  testimony,  and  at  length  states  its  conclusion. 
For  St.  John,  Jesus  was  the  preexistent  Son  of  God  who  be¬ 
came  incarnate:  the  Word  who  existed  in  the  beginning,  per¬ 
haps  of  time,  or  at  least,  of  creation;  who  was  in  relationship 
with  God,  and  who  was  God  in  His  essential  nature;  who  was 
the  medium  of  creation,  the  author  of  life — physical,  mental, 
spiritual — and  the  light  or  illumination  of  men,  yet  often  un¬ 
comprehended  because  of  the  darkness  of  the  human  mind; 
who  was  borne  witness  to  by  John  the  Baptist;  who  eventually 
became  man,  and  dwelt  among  us;  who  was  rejected  by  his 
own — the  Jews;  who  was,  however,  received  by  others,  to 
whom  He  gave  power  to  become  sons  of  God.  In  this  conclusion, 
spiritual  insight  and  experience  have  largely  concurred.1 

1  St.  John,  however,  from  whatever  source  he  derived  his  Logos 
doctrine,  made  his  own  distinctive  contribution  to  it.  If  his  doctrine 
was  related  to  the  Philonic  doctrine,  it  yet  bears  distinctive  marks. 
Professor  W.  F.  Adeny,  in  the  Biblical  World  for  July,  1905,  thus 
summarizes  them:  “In  particular  there  are  four,  viz.:  (1)  the  sense 
of  word  attached  to  the  term  Logos/  rather  than  that  of  reason; 
(2)  the  personality  of  the  Logos;  (3)  his  incarnation;  (4)  his 
identifications  when  incarnate  with  the  Jewish  Messiah.”  (“The  Re¬ 
lation  of  New  Testament  Theology  to  Alexandrian  Thought.”)  Con¬ 
sult  also  Stevens’  “N.  T.  Theology,”  pp.  576-585,  and  Articles 
“Logos”  and  “Philo”  in  Hastings’  Bible  Dictionary;  also  Sanday’s 
“Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,”  Lecture  6,  pp.  185-205. 


APPENDIX  L 


THE  ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

A  resume  of  the  story  may  not  be  amiss.  According  to  St. 
Matthew,  a  virgin,  Mary  by  name,  who  was  espoused  to  Joseph, 
was  (before  they  were  wedded)  found  to  be  with  child  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Joseph,  being  a  strict  follower  of  the  law, 
and  yet  unwilling  to  see  Mary  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
determined  to  put  her  away  privately.  An  angel  of  the  Lord, 
however,  appeared  to  him  in  a  dream,  saying,  “Joseph,  thou 
son  of  David,  fear  not  to  take  unto  thee  Mary  thy  wife:  for 
that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  she 
shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus:  for 
he  shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins.”  1 

Joseph  obeys  the  angel’s  command,  but  does  not  enter  into 
marital  relations  with  his  wife  until  she  had  brought  forth 
her  first-born  son. 

The  birth  of  the  Child  took  place  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea 
in  the  days  of  Herod.  Then  Wise  Men  from  the  East,  led 

1  The  Evangelist  finds  in  this  event  the  fulfilment  of  Isa.  7:14. 
This  use  of  the  passage,  however,  must  be  looked  upon  leniently. 
The  passage  itself  did  not  and  cannot  refer  to  a  Virgin  Birth.  The 
word  translated  “virgin”  really  means  “young  woman.”  Dalman 
is  again  helpful:  “The  Jewish  common  people  never  expected  the 
Messiah  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin;  and  no  trace  is  to  be  found  among 
the  Jews  of  any  Messianic  application  of  Isaiah’s  words  (7:14) 
concerning  the  virgin’s  son,  from  which  by  any  possibility — as  some 
have  maintained — the  whole  account  of  the  miraculous  birth  of 
Jesus  could  have  derived  its  origin.”  (“Words  of  Jesus,”  p.  276.) 
Apropos  of  the  New  Testament  use  of  this  and  similar  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  passages,  the  words  of  the  late  Professor  A.  B.  Davidson 
are  suggestive:  “In  general,  it  was  more  the  actual  life  of  Christ 
that  suggested  to  New  Testament  writers  the  application  to  Him  of 
Old  Testament  passages,  than  a  prevalent  method  of  interpreting 
the  passages.  They  saw  in  His  life  the  full  religious  meaning  of 
the  passages,  and  the  question  of  their  original  sense  or  application 
did  not  occur  to  them.” 


277 


278 


Jesus’  Idea 


by  a  star,  came  to  Jerusalem,  asking,  “Where  is  he  that  is  born 
King  of  the  Jews?”  Herod,  learning  of  their  inquiry,  assembled 
the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes,  and  asked  where  the  Messiah 
was  to  be  born.  In  consonance  with  Micah  5:1,  2,  they  pointed 
to  Bethlehem  of  Judea.  Then,  after  inquiring  of  the  Magi 
as  to  the  time  of  the  star’s  appearance,  Herod  sends  them  away 
to  search  for  the  Child  and  urges  that  they  bring  him  word 
again.  Led  by  the  star,  they  followed  until  it  stood  over  the 
house  where  the  young  Child  and  His  Mother  were.  Enter¬ 
ing,  they  make  obeisance  to  the  Babe,  and  present  gifts  of  gold, 
frankincense,  and  myrrh.  They  are  then  warned  in  a  dream 
not  to  return  to  Herod,  and  they  set  out  for  their  country  by 
another  route.  Joseph  is  also  warned  by  an  angel  to  take  the 
Child  and  His  Mother,  and  to  flee  into  Egypt  to  escape  from 
Herod.  There  they  remain  until  Herod’s  death,  and  thus 
fulfil  the  prophecy  of  Hosea  11:1.  Herod,  however,  greatly 
angered,  decrees  the  murder  of  all  male  children  of  two  years 
of  age  and  under  in  Bethlehem,  and  its  borders.  When  Herod 
was  dead,  however,  Joseph  was  commanded  by  an  angel  to 
return  from  Egypt.  Hearing  that  Archelaus,  Herod’s  son, 
was  reigning,  Joseph  was  fearful,  and  was  directed  by  God  in 
a  dream  to  turn  to  Nazareth  of  Galilee.  (St.  Mt.  1 : 18-25 ;  2.) 

St.  Luke’s  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  its  attendant 
circumstances,  is  more  detailed.  He  begins  with  an  appearance 
of  the  angel  Gabriel  to  the  old  priest,  Zacharias,  as  he  was 
engaged  in  the  Temple,  and  the  announcement  that  his  aged 
wife — the  barren  Elizabeth — would  become  the  joyful  mother 
of  a  son,  who  should,  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  prepare 
the  people  for  the  Lord’s  coming.  Doubting  the  news,  and 
asking  its  corroboration,  Zacharias  is  stricken  with  dumbness. 
His  wife  conceives,  however,  and  goes  into  retirement.  Then 
in  the  sixth  month,  Gabriel  visits  Mary,  the  virgin  espoused 
to  Joseph,  and  announces  that  she  is  to  bear  a  son:  “He  shall 
be  called  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  son  of  the  Highest: 
and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  his  father 
David:  and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever;  and 
of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.”  (Here  in  the  very 
forefront  again  is  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.)  Troubled 
because  she  was  unmarried,  she  hears:  “The  Holy  Ghost  shall 
come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 


Appendix 


279 


thee:  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  Mary’s  attention  is  also  di¬ 
rected  to  the  condition  of  her  cousin  Elizabeth.  She  at  once 
seeks  Elizabeth  in  the  hill  country  of  Judea,  and  is  greeted  with 
the  words:  “Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and  blessed  is 
the  fruit  of  thy  womb,”  while  the  unborn  John  leaped  in  his 
mother’s  womb.  Mary  in  reply  utters  the  Magnificat — a  chant 
of  praise,  modeled  probably  upon  Hannah’s  song  in  I  Sam.  2, 
iff.  After  three  months,  Mary  returns  to  her  home,  and  Eliza¬ 
beth  gives  birth  to  a  son.  On  the  eighth  day  the  child  is  cir¬ 
cumcised,  and  a  name  is  given  under  peculiar  circumstances. 
Zacharias’  speech  is  restored,  and  he  utters  the  hymn  of  praise 
called  the  Benedictus.  The  narrative  concerning  John  then 
concludes  with  the  statement:  “The  child  grew,  and  waxed 
strong  in  spirit,  and  was  in  the  deserts  till  the  day  of  his  shew¬ 
ing  unto  Israel.” 

The  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  is  then  accounted  for  by 
a  decree  of  Augustus  Caesar  which  called  for  a  census  of  the 
Empire,  and  which  was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor 
of  Syria.  This  compelled  Joseph  and  Mary  to  go  to  Bethlehem, 
the  city  of  David,  inasmuch  as  Joseph  was  a  descendant  of 
David.  There  Jesus  was  born  in  a  stable  because  there  was 
no  room  in  the  inn.  The  joyful  news  of  the  birth  was  an¬ 
nounced  by  an  angel  to  some  shepherds  in  an  adjacent  field, 
and  they  heard  the  celestial  hosts  chanting  praises  to  God. 
The  shepherds  immediately  seek  and  find  the  Child,  and  make 
known  their  strange  experience.  All  wonder,  “but  Mary  kept 
all  these  things,  and  pondered  them  in  her  heart.”  After  eight 
days  the  Child  was  circumcised,  and  the  name  Jesus  was  con¬ 
ferred.  When  the  forty  days  of  Purification  had  passed,  Jesus 
was  presented  in  the  Temple,  and  the  prescribed  offering  was 
made.  There  an  aged  and  devout  Jew,  Simeon  by  name,  and 
Anna,  a  prophetess,  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  recognized  in 
Jesus  the  fulfilment  of  their  expectations.  Then  the  parents 
return  to  their  own  city,  Nazareth,  where  the  child  grew,  and 
“waxed  strong  in  spirit,  filled  with  wisdom:  and  the  grace  of 
God  was  upon  him.”  (St.  Lu.  1:5-2:40.) 

The  'reader  will  have  noticed  that  these  are  independent, 
yet  not  inconsistent  accounts. 


APPENDIX  M 


SOME  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  STORY  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

The  objectors  to  the  Biblical  account  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
however,  usually  represent  the  story  as  a  legendary  development, 
based  in  all  probability  upon  some  germ  of  truth  or  idea  found 
in  the  genuine  Gospel  teaching.  They  say,  for  instance,  that 
the  Messiah  was  popularly  supposed  to  be  the  Son  or  descend¬ 
ant  of  David,  hence  by  reasoning,  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  David, 
should  be  the  Messiah’s  birthplace.  Thus  Bethlehem  came  to 
be  the  birthplace  of  Jesus.  Again,  Jesus  was  spoken  of  as  the 
Son  of  God  in  an  ethical  sense.  By  development,  this  was 
transformed  into  a  metaphysical  sense:  Jesus  became  Divine. 
Then  as  a  Divine  Being,  of  course  He  preexisted;  and  if  pre¬ 
existent,  when  He  entered  into  human  life,  He  must  be  born 
of  a  Virgin.  Thus  with  great  ingenuity  and  plausibility  the 
fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  assaulted,  and  nothing  is  left  but 
the  noble  manhood  of  Jesus;  all  but  this  is  development  and 
legend.  A  sufficient  answer  to  this  is  that  sufficient  time  for 
this  development  did  not  elapse  between  the  death  of  Jesus  and 
the  appearance  of  these  two  Gospels — A.  D.  60-80 — especially 
when  we  remember  that  the  accounts  are  based  upon  earlier 
narratives  or  tradition.  This  is  even  better  seen  when  we 
notice  how  slowly  the  Christian  consciousness  grasped  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  This  is  apparent  in  the  writings 
of  the  Ante  Nicene  Fathers.  Spiritual  insight,  however,  as 
well  as  radical  criticism,  must  decide  the  issue,  and  its  verdict 
is  in  favor  of  the  Christian  view. 

Yet  other  objectors  say  that  the  idea  of  a  Virgin  Birth  was 
not  a  feature  of  Jewish  belief,  but  was  borrowed  from  the 
Pagan  World.  There  the  origin  of  the  ideas  and  the  events, 
which  have  embellished  the  Christ  tradition,  is  found.  Numer¬ 
ous  instances  of  belief  in  Divine  generations  and  Virgin  Births 
are  cited.  The  star  in  St.  Matthew’s  account  is  explained  in 

280 


Appendix 


281 


accordance  with  pagan  superstition;  the  origin  of  the  visit  of 
the  Wise  Men  is  found  in  the  journey  of  homage  made  by  the 
Parthian  King,  Tiridates,  with  Magi  in  his  train,  to  the  Em¬ 
peror  Nero;  the  story  of  the  Massacre  of  the  Innocents,  and 
its  motive,  are  found  in  the  narrative  of  Marathus  concerning 
the  birth  of  Augustus  (Suet.  Aug.  94)  ;  while  the  flight  into 
Egypt  is  referred  to  mythological  ideas.  Thus  St.  Matthew’s 
narrative  is  summarily  disposed  of,  while  his  loose  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  are  designed  as  Jewish  supports  of 
Gentile  Fables. 

St.  Luke’s  account  is  also  said  to  be  primarily  the  attempt 
of  Jewish  Christians  to  glorify  the  Infancy  and  the  Childhood 
of  Jesus  by  poetic  fancies,  which  did  not,  however,  at  first  esteem 
him  the  child  of  a  Virgin  Birth.  Verses  34!!  to  this  effect  are 
said  to  have  been  added  by  some  redactor  who  sought  to  har¬ 
monize  Luke’s  account  with  that  of  Matthew,  if  possible. 
Then  the  features  of  the  Presentation — the  action  of  Simeon 
and  Anna — are  done  away  with;  also  the  census  of  Cyrenius; 
also  the  story  of  the  Shepherds.  The  words  of  the  angels’  song, 
indeed,  are  suggested  by  some  Asiatic  proclamations  in  regard 
to  the  birth  of  Augustus  Caesar;  while  Mary’s  journey  to 
Elizabeth  and  Jesus’  visit  to  the  Temple  are  disposed  of  in  a 
similar  manner.  All,  in  fact,  become  pious  legends.  That  many 
of  the  facts  brought  forward  by  these  objectors  are  true,  every 
candid  student  will  admit.  His  conclusion  from  the  facts,  how¬ 
ever,  will  be  different.  That  which  seems,  indeed,  to  the  critic 
to  disprove  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  and  its  attendant  cir¬ 
cumstances,  will  to  spiritual  insight  be  the  foregleams  of  eternal 
truths  vouchsafed  to  a  humanity  in  which  Deity  has  ever  been 
profoundly  interested.1 

1  For  able  and  elaborate  statements  of  the  views  cited  above,  let 
the  reader  consult  the  Articles  “Nativity,”  by  Usener,  and  “Mary,” 
by  Schmiedel,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  and  the  little  brochure, 
“The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ,”  by  Wilhelm  Soltau,  and  also  “The 
Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,”  by  Lobstein.  The  following  objections  to 
the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  have  also  been  carefully  considered 
by  the  writer,  and  although  they  appear  formidable,  and  no  doubt 
are  convincing  to  many  against  the  fact,  he  has  been  able  to  meet 
them,  at  least,  to  his  own  satisfaction.  The  first  two  chapters  of 
St.  Matthew  and  of  St.  Luke  do  not  form  part  of  the  main  body 
of  the  narrative,  but  are  a  later  addition.  The  narratives  are  them¬ 
selves  contradictory  and  inconsistent  in  the  following  particulars : 


282 


Jesus’  Idea 


(a)  the  genealogies  record  a  different  number  of  generations,  and 
agree  in  only  two  names,  (b)  the  scene  of  the  Annunciation  in  St. 
Luke  is  unlike  that  in  St.  Matthew;  (c)  there  is  a  double  indication 
as  to  the  abode  of  the  parents;  (d)  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  and  the 
Flight  into  Egypt  cannot  be  fitted  into  St.  Luke’s  narrative  either 
before  or  after  the  Presentation  in  the  Temple.  The  narratives, 
too,  when  taken  separately,  “raise  insuperable  difficulties,”  some 
features  even  pointing  to  a  mythical  origin :  the  star  of  the  Magi ; 
the  enrolment  under  Cyrenius ;  the  origin  of  Matthew’s  story  in 
an  evident  desire  to  give  prophecy  a  literal  fulfilment;  the  inter¬ 
vention  of  angels ;  the  failure  of  contemporaneous  writers  to  men¬ 
tion  the  massacre  of  the  Innocents.  St.  Luke  2 150  is  inexplicable 
if  Mary  knew  of  the  supernatural  birth ;  Mary’s  general  attitude  is 
also  inexplicable  (St.  Mk.  3:20,  21).  Passing  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  there  is  no  unequivocal  reference  to  the  Virgin  Birth  in  the 
New  Testament.  Paul  ignores  the  doctrine,  neither  using  it  as  a 
proof  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ,  nor  of  His  Divinity.  Twice,  in 
fact,  he  seems  to  exclude  the  idea.  (Rom.  1 13;  Gal.  4:4.)  St.  Peter, 
in  Acts  2:30,  coincides  with  Paul.  (See  also  Acts  13:23.)  The 
silence  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  concerning  the  Virgin  Birth  shows  that 
the  author  “had  found  in  the  Logos  theory  a  deeper  explanation, 
and  to  his  mind  a  better  one,  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ:”  The  reader 
is  referred  to  the  able  defenses  of  the  Virgin  Birth  by  the  late 
Doctor  James  Orr  and  the  Rev.  Louis  W.  Sweet,  entitled  respec¬ 
tively,  “The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ”  and  “The  Birth  and  Infancy 
of  Jesus  Christ.” 


i 


